Judges

See RSA 4:44, Hearing Prior to Confirmation of Judicial Appointment.

See RSA 519:9 regarding the appointment of judicial referees.

The rationale behind our mandatory retirement provision is revealed in New Hampshire's constitutional history. The concept of separation of powers was absent from the 1776 New Hampshire Constitution. The government basically consisted of one branch, a bicameral legislature with a house of representatives and a smaller council of twelve.There was no separate judicial branch. The appointment of judges, with a seventy-year age cap, was instituted out of dissatisfaction with legislative abuses that resulted from a concentration of power in the legislative branch.

[T]he discipline of judges, no less than the discipline of attorneys, is intended to be a way of “protect[ing] the public, maintain[ing] public confidence ..., preserv[ing] the integrity of the legal profession, and prevent[ing] similar conduct in the future,”

Subsequent to our decision in Mussman, Part II, Article 73–a was adopted, codifying the common law concept that the chief justice is the administrative head of the judiciary. As such, according to Article 73–a, the chief justice has the power and the duty to promulgate rules and regulations to ensure the proper operation of the judiciary. Article 73–a grants to the chief justice, as incident to that office, special and unique constitutional duties. While the chief justice's powers under Part II, Article 73–a are both administrative and legislative in nature, they are powers necessary to ensure effective and efficient judicial operation. The fact that the chief justice's powers under Article 73–a are not adjudicatory in nature does not transmogrify them into executive or legislative functions.

[I]n determining the sanction in judicial misconduct cases, we will consider: (1) "[t]he nature of the misconduct"; (2) "[t]he extent of the misconduct"; (3) "[t]he judge's culpability"; (4) "[t]he judge's conduct in response to the [JCC]'s inquiry and [the commencement of] disciplinary proceedings"; and (5) the judge's reputation and record on the bench.

A trial judge is per se disqualified when he has pecuniary interests in the outcome, when he has become personally embroiled in criticism from a party before him, when he has heard evidence in secret at a prior proceeding, or when he is related to a party. The party claiming bias must show its existence or likelihood, or the appearance of bias such that the judge would be unable to achieve the balance between vindicating the interests of the court and the interests of a party. ... The mere fact that the trial court rendered adverse rulings against the plaintiffs does not serve as evidence of the judge's partiality.

An example of an order appointing a superior court judicial referee.

An example of an order appointing a circuit court referee.