Ask the Experts: Legal landscape in NH helps evolve businesses

From legislative reforms to evolving regulatory requirements, the legal landscape continues to influence how businesses plan, invest and grow. This month’s Ask the Experts features legal professionals’ updates on issues affecting New Hampshire organizations and what’s ahead in the state’s legal industry. Whether you’re evaluating a development project or simply staying informed about changes in state law, these perspectives provide valuable context for making confident business decisions.

Panelists:

Nick Mason, business law attorney, Shaheen & Gordon, shaheengordon.com

Hadley E. Johnson, associate attorney, Labor & Employment Group, Drummond Woodsum, dwmlaw.com

Jim Merrill, managing shareholder in New Hampshire, Bernstein Shur, bernsteinshur.com

Nick Mason, business law attorney, Shaheen & Gordon 

Can you explain the recent changes to the state’s condo statute?

In the most recent legislative session, major changes came to New Hampshire’s condominium statute. These have implications for any development larger than 10 units that should hasten approval and may increase the availability of investment funds.

Under the prior statute, any developments more than 10 units were required to enter into some form of registration with the Attorney General’s office. Developments from 11 to 25 units could apply for a shorter registration but still had to get approved.

The new bill changed that process substantially. Now, only condos with more than 25 units need to register with the Attorney General’s office at all. This is more than a matter of saved paperwork. Registration previously required submission of condominium documents, information on the developers and owners, and most importantly, financial information on the developers and their backers.

This was designed to protect buyers in larger condominium developments from the sudden closure or bankruptcy of the developer, leaving them with a half-finished neighborhood. There are still a number of safeguards in place, particularly at the local Planning and Zoning Board levels that can be used to impose performance bonds and ensure financial stability, but state oversight is now gone for developments up to 25 units.

Did the law change anything for larger condo complexes?

The law also changes the registration process for larger developments. The prior law required a detailed financial statement for the declarant. But most declarants are specific to each development and may not have the necessary financial history to provide that statement. In that case, the law required full personal financial statements from anyone holding 25% or more of the declarant entity. This included several years’ tax returns, and just gathering the information was a major hurdle.

Now, for those projects over 25 planned units, the law only requires “documentation demonstrating the financial capacity to finance and complete the project.”

Rather than putting every major owner’s financial history under the microscope, the attorney general will now only be looking for evidence that an applicant can finish this specific project. Financing commitments were already a routine part of the application, and many towns impose completion bond requirements as well.

This change will impact the types of investors who may be able to contribute to a development. For a complex entity like a real estate investment trust, the reporting and disclosure requirements may have deterred their involvement in this market previously. With this change, investment in condominium projects should be easier for larger and out-of-state entities. It may also allow for larger developments overall, as there is a lower regulatory difference between a development above or below the registration threshold.

Are there any drawbacks to these legal changes?

This is not without risks. Without a holistic view of the developer’s financial situation, the attorney general may miss issues relating to a project or its principal owners being over-leveraged by multiple concurrent developments. Out-of-state developers may be unfamiliar with New Hampshire’s permitting and regulatory systems and could face frustrations in adapting to the local environment, clogging local regulators’ schedules. And of course, many in the Granite State will view an influx of out-of-state cash from large investors as threatening the state’s character and rural nature.

The addition of investors concerned solely with return, rather than quality, may push builders and developers to cut corners, leaving unit buyers to clean up the mess after the investor has profited from the initial sale.

Regardless of the risks, we are in the new world already. Though some portions do not go into effect until September, the attorney general’s office is already allowing applicants to withdraw or amend applications following the new rules.

It will take time to see how the legislative shakeup plays out on the ground. But if you need assistance navigating these changes in an informed and lasting way, the real estate team at Shaheen & Gordon is ready to help.

Hadley E. Johnson, associate attorney, Labor & Employment Group, Drummond Woodsum 

What power does the National Labor Relations Board have to regulate labor disputes?

Enacted in 1935, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) created a mechanism for government regulation of private sector collective bargaining. The act created a process for employees to decide whether or not to join a union, to protect employees from employer interference, and to provide a mechanism for the resolution of labor disputes.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the act. The agency is governed by a five-member board appointed by the president and serves as a quasi–judicial body responsible for preventing and remedying unfair labor practices committed by private-sector employers and unions.

The act empowers the board with discretion to regulate labor disputes through its broad statutory mandate to promote industrial peace and the establishment of orderly and peaceful dispute-resolution procedures. Unlike many federal agencies which have developed comprehensive regulatory schemes, the board has established labor policy through decisions on contested unfair labor practice charges.

In some instances, the board has used decisions in individual cases to establish “doctrines” of general applicability.

For example, the NLRB has adopted a “successor bar doctrine” which provides that, when a successor employer assumes its predecessor’s union obligations, the successor employer may not challenge the incumbent union’s status as the employees’ exclusive bargaining representative for a period of one year. There is nothing in the statute that expressly supports this doctrine; instead, it is a product of the board’s general obligation to maintain an orderly labor-management environment.

How are the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit currently treating NLRB-created doctrines?

Recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit have undermined the NLRB’s longstanding independence and ability to shape labor policies in the absence of express statutory authority. In 2024, the Supreme Court overturned precedent and ruled that federal courts should no longer give deference to administrative agencies. Instead, courts must exercise their own independent judgment to determine whether Board doctrines are consistent with the act and are within the scope of its authority.

On July 21, 2026, in Hospital Menonita de Guayama, Inc. v. NLRB, the D.C. Circuit exercised this new authority to invalidate the successor bar doctrine, holding that it was not supported by express statutory language and impermissibly restricted employees’ statutory right to free choice in selecting bargaining representatives.

What does this shift mean for employers in the private sector?

Labor law may undergo significant changes in the coming years, as many core principles governing labor-management relations are derived from longstanding NLRB-created doctrines rather than explicit statutory language. Employers are likely to challenge doctrines viewed as pro-union. Doctrines as fundamental as Weingarten rights, which give employees the right to have a union representative present when being questioned by an employer and which was endorsed by the court during the deference era, may now be subject to review.

Unions are also likely to challenge doctrines that are seen as favorable to employers. For example, under the NLRB’s Collyer doctrine, the board defers consideration of unfair labor practice (ULP) charges in favor of the parties’ grievance procedure.

As most ULPs are initiated by unions, Collyer is viewed as pro-employer, as it allows them to avoid the cost and inconvenience of parallel proceedings before both the Board and a labor arbitrator. The move to relitigate longstanding doctrines will create instability in labor-management relations that has largely been avoided during the act’s long history.

Jim Merrill, managing shareholder in New Hampshire, Bernstein Shur 

Bernstein Shur recently opened an office in Concord. What led to that decision?

Bernstein Shur has been in New Hampshire for nearly 25 years now. We’ve built a strong presence in Manchester and developed relationships with clients and communities throughout the state. And due largely to our work in Government & Public Affairs, Concord has been an important part of our story. Concord sits at the center of many of the conversations that shape New Hampshire’s future, involving public policy, economic development, business growth or community investment. It’s clear that establishing a physical presence there was a natural next step. Our new office at 2 Eagle Square puts us right off Main Street, across from the State House. For our clients, that means easier access to our team and a convenient place to meet when they’re conducting business.

Who will be working from the Concord office?

The office is designed to support attorneys and consultants from across the firm, serving as a gathering place for our colleagues across practice areas when they’re meeting with clients or working in the area. But it will have a particular connection to our Government & Public Affairs (GPA) team and Taylor Caswell, the managing director of Bernstein Shur’s Strategic Economic Solutions consultancy. Both the GPA and Strategic Economic Solutions groups work extensively with businesses, nonprofits, developers, municipalities and other stakeholders navigating opportunities and challenges throughout New Hampshire. Together, they provide the strategic and legal guidance needed to move complex projects forward — from navigating public affairs, governance, policy and funding to developing strategy and making the right connections to support sustainable growth and expansion. The location of the Concord office is intentional and helpful for this important work.

How does the Concord office strengthen Bernstein Shur’s position in New Hampshire?

The new office strengthens our position in New Hampshire in the way that it reflects our firm’s long-term commitment to the state, which, as a New Hampshire native, excites me. We aren’t new to New Hampshire; we’ve been serving clients here since 2003. The Concord office allows us to deepen those relationships and expand our presence in a way that supports both existing and future clients. It complements our Manchester office and gives us a stronger platform to help clients navigate legal, regulatory, government relations and economic development issues as they grow.

What excites you most about this next chapter for Bernstein Shur in New Hampshire?

The opportunity this creates. New Hampshire leads the region in attracting innovative businesses, strong community partners and bold leaders who are shaping the future of our economy. Being in Concord allows us to be further involved at the heart of those conversations and better positioned to help our clients seize opportunities as they emerge. This office is yet another investment in New Hampshire, and as we seek to grow and add new attorneys and consultants to our team, we’re also excited about how this attracts new talent to our firm to build out our strong foundation for the next 25 years and beyond.