Opposition Testimony on HB 1003: Prohibit Grafton County Attorney Private Practice While HB 1003 aims to strengthen prosecutorial integrity and enhance public trust, it fundamentally overlooks the intersectional harms that could arise from its implementation. By prohibiting Grafton County attorneys from engaging in private practice, this bill may inadvertently create a workforce that lacks sufficient stability and resources. Many public servants already face high levels of stress; removing private practice opportunities could exacerbate this situation, pushing qualified attorneys away from public service and, ultimately, diminishing the quality of legal representation for vulnerable communities. Moreover, without accompanying fiscal and equity supports, the bill risks reinforcing systemic inequities within the criminal legal system. Those from historically marginalized backgrounds already experience bias and harm; a more strained public legal framework could deepen these disparities. Policymakers must consider how to balance ethical objectives with structural safeguards to ensure that this bill does not inadvertently burden both public defenders and the constituents they serve. True reform requires comprehensive support that uplifts vulnerable populations rather than isolating them.
HB1003
House · 2026 sessionRepublicanSigned into lawGrafton county attorney private practice ban
AIProhibits the Grafton county attorney from engaging in the private practice of law, with an exception for providing legal services to family members where no conflict of interest exists.
prohibiting the Grafton county attorney from engaging in the private practice of law.
Status
Signed into law · June 9, 2026- ✓Introduced
- ✓House
- ✓Senate
- ✓Governor
- ✓Law
Division of testimony
8 submissionsI oppose HB1693 because it is a terrible piece of legislation aimed at only one individual, rather than a class of individuals across the board - which reveals its partisan and biased nature. Why not regulate all practicing County Attorneys? The State of NH should NOT be in the business of regulating one person’s choice of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or in this case gainful employment. Lawyers occasionally provide legal services outside their scope of employment to help friends or family, for fees or as a pro bono service. The State House has no place regulating how one elected official, who also happens to be a lawyer, chooses to exercise their law license. This would set a terrible precedent for other professions, and I cannot register an objection to this contemplated legislation strenuously enough.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.