Nashua's Ethics Committee Is Attorney Tim Bush's Personal Weapon — And the State Is Fine With It
On December 11, 2025, I filed a formal complaint with the New Hampshire Attorney Discipline Office against Timothy E. Bush, Esquire, chairman of the Nashua Ethics Review Committee. The ADO's finding, issued April 1, 2026, cleared Bush of all violations. I have filed a Request for Reconsideration, due to be heard May 1, 2026.
The ADO sat on this complaint for four months. I have had other complaints dismissed in two weeks. That deliberation time tells me something; this one had meat on the bone.
What the Finding Got Wrong
The ADO's April 1 letter states there is "no evidence" Bush knew the Muccioli court order he publicly brandished had been judicially corrected. That finding is flatly contradicted by pages 38-39 of the May 15, 2025 transcript, a document the ADO had in its possession. In his own words, at that same meeting, Bush stated he had read the motion for reconsideration and accurately described its substance. He knew. The ADO missed it, or chose not to see it.
My reconsideration motion identifies seven specific points of fact and law the ADO overlooked or misapprehended:
· Bush's own transcript statements demonstrate he knew the Muccioli order had been challenged before he publicly used it to accuse me of criminal conduct.
· Bush specifically requested, obtained, copied, and pre-arranged public distribution of that order, without his Committee knowledge, then failed to verify its current judicial status before deploying it as the basis of a public criminal accusation. That is a Rule 1.1 competence violation the ADO never analyzed.
· Bush characterized the May 15 proceeding as a "screening meeting" on the record at the time, then later described it to the ADO as a "hearing." The ADO adopted his post-hoc version without examining his own contradictory contemporaneous statement
· Fred Teeboom corrected Bush's characterization of his request, both in writing on May 8, 2025, and verbally at the meeting, stating he wanted advisory assistance, not representation. Bush's own May 7 email acknowledged the question "should probably be decided by the entire board." No committee vote ever occurred. Bush acted alone.
· Bush told the public "we just found out" why the December 4 meeting had no quorum. RTK records show he received notice two days earlier. The ADO addressed a different discrepancy and never touched this one.
· Bush told the ADO both parties had equal access to committee decision-making. RTK records show Alderman Thibeault participated in pre-meeting communications that affected committee composition while I had no knowledge those communications were happening. The ADO accepted Bush's representation without examining the documentary record that contradicts it.
· Bush told me "You will see what a big boy I am" while simultaneously sitting on the NH Judicial Selection Committee and the NH Judicial Ethics Committee, bodies with direct authority over the judges before whom I have active cases. The ADO analyzed this as a personal squabble. It is not. It is a statement carrying implied institutional weight made by a man with institutional power over the very court system in which I am an active pro se litigant.
A System Without Checks
The ADO is permitted to issue silent warnings to attorneys, discipline that never appears on the public record. That should not be permitted. All discipline should be publicly available and permanently attached to an attorney's record. The current system allows insiders to protect insiders with no accountability to the public that funds these institutions.
Bush chairs the ERC as a one-man operation. Committee rules are disregarded. The attorney hired and paid for by taxpayers to advise the committee is sidelined not by committee vote, but by Bush alone. The documented record shows that attorneys who served alongside him resigned from the committee. So did non-attorney members.
Bush's institutional portfolio is notable: ERC Chairman, member of the NH Judicial Selection Commission, member of the NH Judicial Ethics Committee. These are not positions earned through distinguished legal scholarship. They are positions that concentrate power over the judicial system in the hands of someone the documented record shows is willing to publicly accuse a citizen of criminal conduct using a court order he knew had been corrected.
That is not an ethics committee chairman. That is a liability, a bully and unfulfilled man, wearing a title.
The ADO finding is linked here. The Request for Reconsideration is linked here.