There is a growing concern that deserves attention—not just from those directly involved in litigation with the Town of Newmarket, but from citizens who ultimately bear the financial consequences of the Town’s legal decisions.
At issue is the Town’s continued pursuit of attorney’s fees against a private citizen, even as fundamental legal questions remain unresolved.
This is not simply a disagreement over a contract. It is a broader question of fairness, accountability, and the proper use of public resources.
During the course of litigation, the court acknowledged that neither the governing statutes nor the Town Charter expressly authorize the actions taken by the Town in entering into the settlement agreement at issue. The court further described the question of authority as a “close call.”
Rather than resolving that issue, the court relied on a theory of “ratification.”
That raises an important legal question:
Can a municipality rely on internal action to validate conduct that may not have been authorized by the legislature in the first place?
That question has not been directly answered.
And yet, the Town continues to pursue enforcement—and attorney’s fees—as though it has been definitively resolved.
The Town’s legal strategy is being directed by its counsel, Christopher Hawkins, who also serves as the Town Moderator.
This dual role underscores the importance of careful judgment and transparency.
At a minimum, this situation raises legitimate questions:
These are not abstract concerns—they go to the heart of whether the Town’s actions are grounded in clearly defined legal authority.
Litigation is not free.
Every motion filed, every response drafted, and every hour billed by outside counsel is ultimately paid for by taxpayers.
When a municipality aggressively pursues fees against a citizen—particularly where significant legal questions remain open—it raises a legitimate concern:
Is this about resolving a dispute, or is it about shifting costs at all costs?
Citizens should be asking:
Equally concerning is the Town’s effort to seek sanctions that would limit or restrict a citizen’s ability to file pleadings.
Regardless of one’s position on the underlying dispute, the principle is clear:
Access to the courts is a fundamental right.
Efforts to restrict that access should be reserved for truly extreme circumstances—not simply because a litigant continues to raise legal arguments or preserve issues for appeal.
At its core, this situation raises a simple but important question:
What is the goal?
Public trust depends on the perception—and reality—that government acts with restraint, fairness, and accountability.
This is not a call for anyone to “win” or “lose.”
It is a call for:
When government power is exercised, it should be done carefully, and with clear legal grounding.
Anything less invites unnecessary conflict—and erodes public confidence.
Disagreements in government are inevitable.
But how those disagreements are handled matters.
Pursuing fees aggressively, while key legal questions remain unresolved, is not just a litigation strategy—it is a policy choice.
And it is one that deserves careful public scrutiny.
Sign up for free local newsletters and alerts for the
Exeter, NH Patch
Patch.com is the nationwide leader in hyperlocal news.
Visit Patch.com to find your town today.