Condemnation of Donahue, Tucker & Ciandella and Attorney Christopher Hawkins

By Jeffrey Thomas Clay

The actions of Donahue, Tucker & Ciandella, and specifically Attorney Christopher Hawkins, in connection with the Town of Newmarket’s Right-to-Know violations, demand condemnation.

Unlawful Secret Contract

This law firm, with full knowledge or reckless disregard of the law, offered and promoted a secret contract designed to restrict a citizen’s rights under RSA 91-A. Such an agreement is void ab initio, as it violates public policy and undermines the transparency requirements that are fundamental to New Hampshire government. Attorneys who counsel a municipality to pursue such unlawful ends cross the line between zealous advocacy and outright misconduct.

Misuse of the Courts and False Denials

Rather than confront their ethical breach, the attorneys pressed forward:

• They filed a lawsuit to enforce the unlawful contract, weaponizing the courts to suppress transparency.
• They lied to the Ombudsman, the Superior Court, and the Supreme Court, claiming that Newmarket had not violated RSA 91-A in formulating the agreement, when in fact the contract was approved through private email exchanges between town councilors and the town manager, outside of any lawful meeting.

Concealment of Public Records — Violations of RSA 91-A and RSA 641

By concealing or refusing to produce minutes, records, and emails that evidenced how the contract was approved, these attorneys engaged in more than a civil violation. Their actions fall under RSA 641 (Falsification in Official Matters), which criminalizes knowingly concealing or destroying public records.

Attorney Christopher Hawkins’s Complicity

Attorney Christopher Hawkins, now the sole attorney representing Newmarket, had a clear opportunity to correct the record. I personally urged him to do the right thing before the Supreme Court — to admit that the contract was unlawful, that the Town violated RSA 91-A, and that concealment of public records occurred. He refused. By refusing, Attorney Hawkins perpetuated the lies of his colleagues, allowed falsehoods to infect the judicial process, and chose loyalty to a cover-up over loyalty to the law.

Ethical Breach and Public Betrayal

Rule 1.2(d) of the New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct is explicit: an attorney must not counsel or assist a client in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent. Donahue, Tucker & Ciandella’s attorneys, including Hawkins, not only violated this rule, but compounded the damage by misleading multiple tribunals. Their conduct betrays the public, undermines the integrity of the courts, and erodes trust in the legal system.

Conclusion

The conduct of Donahue, Tucker & Ciandella, and of Attorney Christopher Hawkins personally, is indefensible. They advanced an unlawful contract, concealed public records, and misled the Ombudsman, the Superior Court, and the Supreme Court. Their refusal to come clean demonstrates a fundamental disregard for justice, ethics, and the people’s right to know. They should be condemned in the strongest possible terms.