When a Law Firm Becomes the Problem — Why New Hampshire Must Confront the Conduct of Donahue, Tucker

By Jeffrey T. Clay – Opinion

In a state that prides itself on accountability, transparency, and the rule of law, New Hampshire’s democratic institutions depend on the integrity of those who serve them—especially the attorneys entrusted with advising municipal governments. But when a law firm’s actions raise repeated questions about honesty, accuracy, and respect for public-records law, the public has not only the right but the duty to demand answers.

Over the past several years, I have witnessed conduct by the law firm Donahue, Tucker & Ciandella (DTC) that, in my view, represents a profound departure from the ethical obligations lawyers owe to courts, clients, and the public. These concerns are not abstract. They are grounded in court transcripts, filings, Right-to-Know correspondence, and sworn statements that I have submitted to the proper authorities. While the legal system will ultimately determine what is true, I believe the broader public deserves to understand why these issues matter.

A Pattern of Misstatements and Shifting Narratives
At the heart of my concerns lies a disturbing pattern: statements made to courts and state tribunals that are contradicted by documents, emails, or facts later uncovered through Right-to-Know requests.

In my opinion, DTC’s representations have been inconsistent in ways that disadvantage the public’s right to know how its government operates. In multiple filings, the firm asserted that no public records existed related to certain Town Council actions—only for later evidence to reveal emails, communications, and decision-making that clearly occurred outside of properly noticed public meetings.

In a state where RSA 91-A (the Right-to-Know Law) forms the backbone of governmental transparency, these contradictions are deeply troubling.

Right-to-Know Law: The Public’s Shield Against Secrecy
New Hampshire courts have long recognized that government cannot conduct public business in the shadows. When a law firm advises a municipality, that firm shares in the responsibility to ensure legal compliance.

Yet in my dealings with DTC, I witnessed what I believe to be:

• Overbroad claims of attorney-client privilege
• Failure to disclose records plainly subject to RSA 91-A
• Inconsistent explanations regarding whether key decisions were made in public or private
• A refusal to acknowledge when a public body’s actions violated statutory meeting requirements

These are not minor procedural lapses—they go to the core of democratic governance.

Misleading Courts and Tribunals: A Breakdown in Professional Duty
Attorneys have a solemn duty of candor toward the tribunal. This duty does not bend for convenience, politics, or institutional embarrassment.

Yet in my case, DTC repeatedly made statements to the Rockingham Superior Court and the New Hampshire Supreme Court that, in my view, were misleading, incomplete, or directly contradicted by the factual record.

To the public, these may appear as legal technicalities. But to those who depend on the judicial system for fairness, they represent something far more serious: erosion of trust in the courts themselves.

When a law firm tells a court that an event did not occur, and later it emerges that the event in fact did occur—without any correction or clarification—confidence in the justice system is shaken.

Possible Criminal Implications: The Public Deserves Answers
I am not a prosecutor, and it is not my role to determine guilt. But RSA 641 (Falsification in Official Matters) and RSA 643 (Official Oppression) exist for a reason: to protect the public from deceit by those wielding governmental power.

Based on the documents I have reviewed—including internal emails, Right-to-Know responses, affidavits, and court transcripts—I believe there is a legitimate question as to whether certain actions by DTC attorneys may implicate these statutes. The Attorney General’s Office has been notified of these concerns, and it is now their responsibility to conduct the necessary investigation.

Whether or not criminal charges are ultimately warranted, the public must demand transparency and accountability.

Why This Matters: A Democracy Cannot Function Without Truth
Municipal attorneys do not simply represent a town. They shape how that town conducts business, how it treats its residents, and whether it honors its legal obligations.

When a law firm:
• Gives contradictory explanations to courts
• Claims public records do not exist when they clearly do
• Attempts to blur the line between public meetings and private decisions
• Submits statements that conflict with documentary evidence

…it raises questions far beyond one resident’s dispute. It calls into question whether entire communities are being deprived of their rights under state law.

This is not about personal grievances. It is about whether the people of New Hampshire can trust that their town governments are acting lawfully—and that the lawyers advising them are doing so with honesty and integrity.

A Call for Oversight and Reform
New Hampshire deserves better. Residents deserve municipal attorneys who respect the law, tell the truth, and understand that their obligation extends beyond their client—it extends to the public itself.

I call upon:
• The New Hampshire Attorney General
• The Judicial Conduct Committee
• The Attorney Discipline Office
• The NH Legislature’s Judiciary Committee

to review how municipal law firms interact with public-records law and to establish clearer guidelines to prevent abuses.

DTC may dispute my allegations, and they are entitled to do so. But the documents exist. The transcripts exist. The contradictions exist. The public deserves an honest accounting of what has occurred.

Democracy demands nothing less.