Agencies created by the judicial branch are not included in the definition of “public body” or “public agency” contained within RSA 91-A and therefore their records are not subject to disclosure as a public record under RSA 91-A. However, it is possible there are other rules which apply to the judiciary which would allow the public to have limited access to these records.
In this case, the court reviewed the legal question of whether or not RSA 91-A applies to the New Hampshire Professional Conduct Committee or the Attorney Discipline Office. The key question here was whether either of these bodies qualified as a “public body” or “public agency” as defined in RSA 91-A. In analyzing these definitions, the court noted that the legislature chose to include in the definition of public agency and public body two of the three branches of government, those being the executive branch and the legislative branch. Intentionally left from these definitions is the judicial branch. Consequently, the court ruled that the judicial branch, and entities created by the judiciary are exempt from RSA 91-A, as records of the judiciary do not meet the statutory definition of governmental records. Since the Professional Conduct Committee and the Attorney Discipline Office were both established by the judicial branch, they are governed by the rules as they apply to the judicial branch. Therefore, records of these entities are not subject to public record requests under RSA 91-A.
READ MORE IN COURT DECISION!
Practice Pointer: For the most part, records within the care, custody and control of a municipality will not fall into this “exception”. Even if a record was created by a judicial branch entity, if it was received, accepted or obtained by a public body or agency as defined in RSA 91-A, it may become a governmental record subject to disclosure. However, if a record request is made directly of a judicial branch entity for a record within its control, the record may be exempt under RSA 91-A.