Dear Mr. Karoutas,
Since your firm has received $70,000 or more since 27th October, 2025, to help with communications and image for the judiciary, perhaps you can provide answers to the following questions:
1) When is the Supreme Court going to hear the complaint I have against Jane Young for Conflicts of Interest in her representation of Supreme Court Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald? It has been several months now since the Professional Conduct Committee determined that the Attorney Disciplinary Office couldn’t handle it since Jane Young is on the ADO screening committee. Yet the complaint is about her representation of Gordon MacDonald in the Dianne Martin matter. Dianne Martin was Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, under which the ADO falls. Supreme Court Chief Justice MacDonald appointed the Director of the Administrative Offices of the Courts, and thus, it is he who ultimately oversees the Attorney Disciplinary Office.
2) When will there be a hearing about my complaint against Demetrias Aspirias III, Esq of Drummond Woodsum for conflicts of interest representing the Administrative Offices of the Court and the Attorney Disciplinary Office and, thus, effectively representing Supreme Court Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald’s personal interests? [BEST: Can Senators Vote Fairly if They Received Campaign Donations From The NHCADSV?]
The Professional Conduct Committee also determined that the ADO could not handle this complaint due to conflicts of interest. Hilariously, the Consumer Complaints and Monopoly Bureau at the AG’s office referred me to the ADO regarding my conflicts-of-interest concerns about Drummond Woodsum. In other words, the AG’s office referred me to DW’s client. It does not bode well for perception about the Consumer Bureau either. Drummond Woodsum also represents the New Hampshire Municipalities Association, which lobbied successfully against HB111, a bipartisan bill that would have helped address recourse for corrupt acts by public officials and agencies.
Drummond Woodsum informed me that I did not have the right to access drafts of the Supreme Court Letter announcing that former Justice Barbara Hantz-Marconi would be welcomed back to the bench, subject to reinstatement of her law license by the Attorney Disciplinary Office.
Gordon MacDonald was a primary witness for the alleged crimes of Justice Hantz-Marconi. He hired Erin Creegan, Esq to argue that he should not have to testify under oath at Hantz-Marconi’s trial about whether or not she had a conversation with him in which he asserted that she could speak to Governor Sununu about her husband’s case. He stated in his deposition that he did not tell her to speak to the Governor, but he wasn’t willing to say this under oath. The appearance is that he lied in his deposition and that Hantz-Marconi’s plea deal was as much to save his position and reputation as it was hers.
Since the Supreme Court letter had the support of justices under MacDonald and it was released on the same day that Hantz-Marconi pleaded “no contest”, the optics suggest that MacDonald, the key witness in a criminal proceeding against his colleague in the state’s highest court, had prior knowledge of the pending no contest plea deal; and, that he may have been involved in orchestrating it in order to avoid having to testify under oath in Hantz-Marconi’s trial. Furthermore, since Jane Young was on the ADO screening committee, Gordon MacDonald knew ahead of the letter that Barbara Hantz-Marconi would be reinstated by the ADO because he effectively controlled it via Dianne Martin and Jane Young. The letter was, therefore, a piece of PR and fickle.
Before Gordon MacDonald ascended to the Supreme Court, he filed an application for the position. In that application, he mentioned Gordon Humphrey as a sponsor. He also stated that he didn’t have any conflicts of interest.
He did not mention that he was still listed as an agent at Nixon Peabody for a company managed by Gordon Humphrey.
That Company has been removed from the Secretary of State’s website – but only after I pointed this issue out in 2024 or so.
Gordon MacDonald was only disqualified from hearing YDC cases after I pointed out the appearance of conflicts of interest arising from his Nixon Peabody tie and from his dismissal of David Meehan’s original complaint against the State for YDC abuse as “victim negligence”.
David Vicinanzo is Gordon MacDonald’s former partner at Nixon Peabody. Curiously, after Gordon MacDonald dismissed David Meehan’s original suit for victim negligence when he was AG, David Vicinanzo teamed up with Russ Rilee, and hundreds of YDC suits were filed. Is Gordon MacDonald still an equity partner, covertly or otherwise, of Nixon Peabody? Is that why he remained an agent for Gordon Humphrey’s company well after he became a Supreme Court Chief Justice? Was he going to financially benefit from any settlements achieved by David Vicinanzo?
Lots of questions.
Transparency is the only way to restore trust in the judiciary. Unfortunately, that has been lacking. The payments to your firm weren’t exactly forthcoming either. Todd Bookman discovered them and then reported. For $70K to steer the judiciary’s reputation, I would think that declaring the arrangement on day one would be a start. Instead, it is now 8 months after the arrangement began that the public is hearing about it. Another strike against the judiciary’s trustworthiness.
Authors’ and Speakers’ opinions are their own and may not represent those of Grok Media, LLC, GraniteGrok.com, its sponsors, readers, authors, or advertisers.
Disagree, agree, Got Something to say? We Want to Hear It. Comment or submit Op-Eds to steve@granitegrok.com
