PART 4 The Lawsuit and the Attorney Discipline Complaint Against Attorney Bush
I filed an ethics complaint against Alderman Thibeault on September 14, 2025. It was a straightforward three-page complaint identifying a single ethics violation.
According to ERC Clerk Perrin, the thirty-day clock began on September 17, 2025. He emailed committee members and proposed meeting dates within the required thirty-day window, partially complying with the ordinance. The committee agreed to meet on October 16, 2025, and I was notified.
But the meeting scheduled was not a hearing. It was a screening meeting.
A screening meeting simply determines whether the complaint is signed, notarized, and states a valid claim. In practical terms, it is the equivalent of a case being docketed in court. In the courts, that review takes a day or two.
In Nashua, my complaints have taken five to eight months just to screen.
The October Meeting That Never Happened
On October 14, 2025, I was notified that the meeting had been cancelled because the committee lacked a quorum.
At the time, the ERC had six members: five regular members and one alternate. The alternate resigned and Attorney Tencza claimed a conflict of interest.
I was never informed of the nature of that conflict. I had requested his recusal and assumed that it was because of me. No confirmation was given; turns out I was wrong.
The Committee’s Rules of Procedure require that the reason for a recusal be publicly stated and that the remaining members concur on the recusal. Neither occurred. Attorney Tencza’s recusal was never explained or voted upon, despite the requirements of the rules and RSA 91-A.
The December 4 Non-Meeting
The next meeting was scheduled for December 4, 2025 at 6:30 p.m.
I appeared.
The committee did not.
Two members were present, but there was still no quorum. What followed was a five-minute exchange led by Chairman Attorney Tim Bush that ultimately became part of my complaint to the Attorney Discipline Office.
During that brief exchange:
• Bush announced there was no quorum.
• Bush refused to disclose the reason another member had recused.
• I asserted my rights under RSA 91-A.
• Bush said he would discuss the matter with me “tomorrow,” but never did.
• I again asked who had recused and why.
• Bush said I would have to use the “process of elimination” to figure it out.
• Bush told me that if I disagreed, I should “file suit in Superior Court.”
• I responded with a sarcastic remark.
• Bush replied, “You’ll see what a big boy I am.”
• Bush announced that a hearing might be scheduled sometime in January.
• Bush refused to allow the committee’s outside hired municipal counsel to speak.
• Bush then left the room, telling me I had “no class.”
No hearing was ever scheduled.
What Bush Told the Attorney Discipline Office
In responding to my Attorney Discipline Office complaint, Bush wrote a response to the ADO , unsigned, untitled, and unsworn, stating that on December 2nd or 3rd Alderman Thibeault informed a city official that an ERC member might have a conflict of interest.
According to Bush, the member had either displayed a Thibeault campaign sign, donated to his campaign, or both.
Bush stated that he met with the committee’s attorney, Bob Sullivan, shortly before the December 4 meeting and that the member decided at that time that the appearance of a conflict required recusal.
But under the ERC’s own Rules of Procedure, recusal requires discussion and concurrence by the committee.
Had the member attended the meeting, a quorum would have existed. The reason for the recusal could have been disclosed and the committee could have voted to accept it in public session.
Instead, the information was withheld.
Alderman Thibeault knew the reason. The committee knew the reason. I was never told.
The Second Basis for the ADO Complaint
The second part of my Attorney Discipline complaint concerns a May 15, 2025 ERC screening meeting involving a complaint filed by citizen Fred Teeboom.
During that meeting, Chairman Bush publicly accused me of engaging in criminal conduct under RSA 311:7, the unauthorized practice of law statute.
Bush claimed that I had improperly assisted Mr. Teeboom with his complaint. On the record, Mr. Teeboom refuted that claim in the hearing. Bush also cited a footnote in an order issued by retired Judge Colburn, suggesting that I had been seen advising a litigant in court and suspected that I assisted with their filing.
After a Judicial Conduct complaint was filed against the Judge, part of the footnote was struck from the order. The Judge’s alleged observation was incorrect.
I was not a party to the case and had no opportunity to defend myself during the ERC meeting. No investigation was conducted, and no wrongdoing was ever found.
To support his claim of potential criminal conduct, although never raised in the May 15, 2025 meeting, Bush later told the Attorney Discipline Office that he believed I had assisted Mr. Teeboom in writing an email concerning potential rule changes before the ERC. That allegation is wholly untrue. But even if it were true, since when does assisting someone in writing an email constitute the unauthorized practice of law?
Bush submitted examples of two emails I had written and compared them to an email written by Mr. Teeboom.
The comparison raises a broader issue: whether the treatment I received reflects a pattern of disparate treatment of women compared to men. That issue deserves its own discussion in Part 5.
The Setup
Mr. Teeboom had previously emailed Bush asking whether a non-attorney assistant could help him prepare for a potential hearing if his complaint advanced.
Bush responded that the matter would likely need to be addressed by the full committee.
Instead, Bush requested Judge Colburn’s order from the City’s legal office without copying or the knowledge of his committee.
On the day of the May 15 meeting, the clerk emailed Bush confirming “as you requested” that copies of the order would be brought to the meeting for committee members and to be given to the public.
The committee itself was not included in that communication and therefore could not review the information prior to the meeting.
At the start of the meeting, Attorney Bob Sullivan suggested addressing Mr. Teeboom’s procedural questions first.
Bush refused without discussion from his committee.
About an hour into the hearing, Bush asked Mr. Teeboom who he intended to use as a non-attorney assistant. Mr. Teeboom replied, Laurie Ortolano.
Bush then launched into a lengthy accusation that I had assisted him unlawfully. Mr. Teeboom immediately stated that I had not written his complaint and had not assisted him in drafting it. He pulled out Colburn’s order and read the footnote into the record. His ambush was successful. He pointed his finger at me and exclaimed that “I think you conduct is a problem.” Once against his committee was not consulted.
In fact, I had never even read Teeboom’s complaint. The committee members appeared as surprised by the accusation as I was. One member called for an immediate non-public session for a legal consultation. Attorney Bush had succeeded in levelling the damage to my reputation in the presence of the public and press.
The Aftermath
I was stunned that Bush would publicly accuse me of criminal conduct without any investigation. Bush later offered only to “correct the record” if the footnote he cited turned out to be inaccurate. I provided documentation showing that the statement had been removed from the order. The committee never corrected the record.
Attorney Tencza served as a Nashua Alderman-At-Large for four years. He knew or should have known that what went down was unethical and improper particularly for a quasi-judicial committee, but remained silent.
Connections and Confidence
Bush has practiced law in Nashua for more than thirty years and is well-connected within the state’s legal community.
He currently serves on the Judicial Selection Commission, with long-term connections to Governor Ayotte, and has been appointed by the New Hampshire Supreme Court to the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics. He has the opportunity to engage in ex-parte communications with many Judges.
He also previously served as chair of the Nashua Bar Association.
When Bush told me, “You’ll see what a big boy I am,” he appeared confident that those connections would shield him from scrutiny.
The question now is whether they will.