Supreme Court of New Hampshire

CONCORD – Allegations of wrongdoing by Judge Julie A. Introcaso, stemming from her handling of a parenting case filed more than two years ago in Nashua family court, has prompted the state Judicial Conduct Committee to place her on paid administrative leave as the case heads toward a hearing in the state Supreme Court.

Originally scheduled for Dec. 14, the hearing has been continued, according to the committee’s Website. It has not yet been rescheduled, but indications are it will be about 60 days. Information regarding public access and a live-stream broadcast will be posted when a date is set.

The committee’s investigation, according to a statement that the office of Attorney General Gordon MacDonald issued in late October, is centered on whether Introcaso should be charged with criminal offenses such as falsifying physical evidence, a felony, or tampering with public records or information, a misdemeanor.

A Supreme Court order dated Oct. 22 – the same day MacDonald’s office issued the statement – placed Introcaso on unpaid administrative leave, a reversal of the court’s January order placing her on paid leave.

But on Nov. 5, the court amended its Oct. 22 order, stating that “upon consideration,” the court was putting Introcaso back on paid leave “until further order.”

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, in the Nov. 5 order, wrote that it “expects the Judicial Conduct Committee’s hearing to occur on Dec. 14 … and for a decision to be issued promptly thereafter … .”

The allegations against Introcaso are detailed in a 13-page complaint the Judicial Conduct Committee filed Oct. 14. The committee states it brought the charges “on the basis of two complaints” against Introcaso.

The first “arises out of a report filed by an individual named Robin Partello,” who, it notes, was the respondent in a parenting petition filed by David Campbell, a former state representative from Nashua.

Partello and Campbell are the parents of a young child. Campbell filed the parenting petition in family court in 2018, and the case went before Introcaso.

The second complaint, which was generated by the Judicial Conduct Committee itself, is “based on the apparent alteration of the court file” in the Partello-Campbell case, according to the committee.

Its complaint cites a timeline of pertinent events throughout the course of the case, including a step-by-step accounting of allegations that led the committee to its decision to file the complaint against Introcaso.

Among them are accusations that Introcaso failed to initially report a conflict of interest involving Attorney Kathleen Sternenberg, who had been appointed guardian ad litem (GAL) in the Partello-Campbell case despite the fact that Introcaso and Sternenberg “have a long-standing, close friendship,” the JCC wrote.

As the case proceeded, Partello reported to the committee, she received a series of unfavorable rulings, prompting her to question whether Introcaso’s and Sternenberg’s friendship influenced the rulings.

Partello pointed out that Sternenberg was on Introcaso’s “recusal list,” which names court officials or officers, including attorneys, whose participation in legal proceedings over which the judge is presiding would present a conflict of interest.

Pertinent to Partello’s complaint, the committee states, is Partello’s allegation that Introcaso ruled on several motions filed by, or relating to, Sternenberg in her role as the GAL.

Introcaso, the complaint states, admitted to ruling on those motions, even though she knew of Sternenberg’s involvement.

At first, Introcaso allegedly maintained “that she did not know of” Sternenberg’s involvement, “because she sometimes did not read the orders she was co-signing” with the court master.

Later, according to the committee, when Introcaso allegedly said she was aware of Sternenberg’s involvement, Introcaso said she “believed her actions (signing the orders) were permissible because she was issuing what she believed were ‘non-substantive’ orders,” meaning minor orders that “did not resolve any specific legal issues in the case itself,” the complaint states.

The committee’s investigation was soon to grow more complex, when, at the beginning of 2020, the allegations that Introcaso altered the Partello-Campbell parenting petition case file by “whiting out” certain words, sentences and in at least one instance, an entire order, according to the complaint.

Introcaso, in early January, the complaint states, asked a court clerk if she “whited out” the order “to protect me,” to which the clerk responded she didn’t, and “I wouldn’t do that.”

The clerk asked Introcaso if it could have been Partello who whited-out the order, dated March 2019, while she was reviewing her file, but a check of the “sign-out sheet” suggested otherwise, prompting the committee to conclude that “it did not appear that Ms. Partello ever looked at the court file, or had it in her possession.”

In response to questions posed by the committee during its investigation, Introcaso denied whiting-out her March 2019 orders regarding “Apple Pay” and a fee cap, which are two of the issues Partello cited in her complaint.

But Introcaso admitted that her alleged actions, “including asking court staff members if they whited-out court orders, caused serious anxiety.”

According to the complaint, she told the committee that “I now appreciate that my handling of thise case record (in January 2020) created serious concern and anxiety with clerks and employees.”

She also said she is “deeply remorseful and apologetic for my actions” in the handling of “this unusual situation.

“In retrospect, I wish I had consulted with my superior judge or clerk of court immediately.”

Dean Shalhoup may be reached at 594-1256 or dshalhoup@nashuatelegraph.com.

Newsletter