DTC Attorneys Knew—And Defended It Anyway: A Taxpayer-Funded Failure of Duty in Newmarket

DTC Attorneys Knew—And Defended It Anyway: A Taxpayer-Funded Failure of Duty in Newmarket

There comes a point in litigation where advocacy stops being zealous representation and starts becoming something else entirely.

That line was crossed in the Town of Newmarket case.

Attorneys from Donahue Tucker & Ciandella PLLC—including John Ratigan, Christopher Hawkins, and others within the firm—did not simply defend their client. They defended a position that, by the record itself, could not be reconciled.

And they did so at the expense of Newmarket taxpayers.

The central facts were not hidden. They were admitted.

Town Manager Stephen Fournier swore under oath that the Town Council did not meet to approve the settlement agreement. Instead, the decision was formed through email communications involving council members and legal counsel .

Then, in writing, Fournier told a citizen requesting records of those very deliberations that “no such documents exist.”

That is not a nuance. That is a contradiction.

And it was sitting in plain view.

They Knew the Authority Wasn’t There

This was not a complex legal gray area. The Newmarket Town Charter is clear about the limits of a Town Manager’s authority. It does not grant unilateral power to:

• Enter binding settlement agreements affecting statutory rights
• Replace lawful council action with email exchanges
• Eliminate a citizen’s ability to exercise rights under New Hampshire RSA 91-A

These are not obscure principles. They are foundational.

Experienced municipal attorneys—especially those at a firm like DTC—knew this. Or at minimum, they should have.

Yet instead of stopping the process, correcting the record, or advising their client to unwind an unlawful agreement, they did the opposite.

They defended it.

125 False and Misleading Statements—and Still No Course Correction

Across filings and proceedings, there were over 125 false and misleading statements advanced to the Ombudsman and the courts.

At some point, volume becomes its own form of evidence.

One misstatement can be a mistake.
A handful might be negligence.
But when the number climbs into the dozens—and then into the hundreds—the explanation changes.

At that stage, the responsibility of counsel is clear: stop, reassess, and correct.

That did not happen here.

Instead, the narrative was maintained.

Officers of the Court Don’t Get to Look the Other Way

Attorneys are not just hired advocates. They are officers of the court.

That designation carries obligations:

• Not to advance positions they know are unsupported
• Not to rely on statements that are contradicted by the record
• Not to perpetuate claims that cannot be squared with governing law

When confronted with a sworn affidavit admitting no meeting occurred, and a letter denying the existence of documents that the affidavit itself confirms, the obligation is not to defend the contradiction.

The obligation is to address it.

Instead, DTC attorneys—including Ratigan and Hawkins—pressed forward.

Tens of Thousands of Dollars to Defend the Indefensible

This is not theoretical.

The Town of Newmarket has spent tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars on legal fees to defend this position.

Not to correct an error.
Not to resolve a legitimate dispute.
But to maintain a narrative that collapses under its own weight.

Every billable hour represents public money used not to uphold the law—but to avoid its consequences.

This Was a Choice

No one forced these attorneys to take this path.

At multiple points, they had options:

• Advise the Town to revisit the agreement
• Acknowledge the procedural failures
• Correct the inconsistencies in the record
• Bring the matter to a lawful resolution

They chose none of those.

They chose to litigate.

The Question That Now Belongs to the Public

The question is no longer just what the Town did.

It is this:

Why did experienced attorneys—fully aware of the Charter, the Right-to-Know Law, and the contradictions in the record—choose to defend it anyway?

Because when officers of the court defend what they know—or should know—is indefensible, the damage extends far beyond a single case.

It erodes trust in the legal system.
It signals that public accountability can be litigated away.
And it tells taxpayers that their money can be used not to uphold the law—but to fight it.

That is not advocacy.

That is a failure of duty.