PART 4 The Lawsuit and the Attorney Discipline Complaint Against Attorney Bush
On September 14, 2025, I filed an ethics complaint against Nashua Alderman Derek Thibeault.
The complaint was straightforward: three pages identifying a single alleged ethics violation.
Under the Nashua Revised Ordinances governing the Ethics Review Committee (“ERC”), complaints are first reviewed in a screening meeting. The purpose of that meeting is limited. The committee determines whether the complaint:
• is signed
• is notarized
• states a claim within the committee’s jurisdiction.
In practical terms, this step is equivalent to a complaint being docketed in court. In the court system, that review typically occurs within days. In Nashua, my ethics complaints have taken five to eight months just to reach the screening stage.
The Thirty-Day Requirement
ERC Clerk Gary Perrin acknowledged receipt of the complaint and stated that the thirty-day clock began on September 17, 2025.
He circulated proposed meeting dates to the committee within the required time period. The committee agreed to meet on October 16, 2025.I was notified of the date.
Record reference: Nashua Revised Ordinance IX Rules and Complaints
But the meeting scheduled was not a hearing on the merits. It was only the initial screening review.
The October Meeting That Never Happened
On October 14, 2025, two days before the meeting, I was notified via email by Clerk Perrin that it had been cancelled. The stated reason: the committee lacked a quorum.
At that time the ERC had six members:
• five regular members
• one alternate.
The alternate resigned. Attorney Tencza claimed a conflict of interest. No explanation was provided.
The committee’s Rules of Procedure require two things when a member recuses:
The reason for the recusal must be publicly stated
The remining members must concur with the recusal
Neither occurred. The recusal was never publicly explained. No vote was taken.
The December 4 Non-Meeting
The screening meeting was rescheduled for December 4, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. I appeared. The committee did not. Two members were present, but a quorum was still lacking.
What followed was a brief exchange led by ERC Chair Attorney Tim Bush that ultimately became part of my complaint to the New Hampshire Attorney Discipline Office (ADO).
During that five-minute exchange:
• Bush announced there was no quorum
• Bush refused to disclose which 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 which member had recused and why
• Bush replied that I would have to use the “process of elimination” to determine it
• Bush suggested 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 suggested a hearing might occur in January
• Bush refused to allow the committee’s outside counsel to speak
• Bush then left the room telling me I had “no class.”
Record reference: Meeting Minutes December 4, 2025
No hearing was ever scheduled.
What Bush Told the Attorney Discipline Office
In responding to my complaint to the Attorney Discipline Office, Attorney Bush submitted a written response. The document was unsigned, untitled and unsworn.
In that response, Bush stated that on December 2 or 3 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 wrote in his response to my ADO compliant that he met with the committee’s outside attorney, Bob Sullivan, shortly before the December 4 meeting. "The member decided at that time they had the appearance of a conflict which precluded them from hearing the matter. This decision was made at approximately 6:25 p.m., on December 4, 2025."
But the ERC’s own Rules of Procedure (7) require recusal to be discussed and accepted by the committee. Had the member attended the meeting, a quorum would have existed. The committee could have:
• publicly disclosed the issue
• discussed the conflict
• voted whether to accept the recusal.
Instead, it appears a quorum of three ERC members met prior to them meeting, Tabascko, Wiseman, Bush and the Attorney to privately discuss the matter. This information regarding the illegal meeting and recusal was withheld. In fact, member Wiseman did not put his recusal in writing until the end of January 2026, after I complained that a records search yield no documents that he had recused. Alderman Thibeault knew the reason. The committee knew the reason. I was never told. Instead, I was required to file a series of Right-to-Know requests and a Declaratory Judgement Lawsuit in Superior Court.
The Second Basis for the ADO Complaint
A separate issue forms the second basis of my Attorney Discipline Office complaint.
On May 15, 2025, during an ERC screening meeting involving a complaint filed by citizen Fred Teeboom, Chairman Bush publicly accused me of engaging in criminal conduct under RSA 311:7, the statute governing the unauthorized practice of law.
Bush claimed I had assisted Mr. Teeboom in preparing his complaint. Mr. Teeboom immediately stated on the record that this was not true. Bush also cited a footnote in an order issued by retired Judge Colburn, suggesting that I had been seen advising a litigant in court.
After a Judicial Conduct complaint was filed against the Judge, that portion of the footnote was removed from the order. The Judges alleged observation was incorrect. I was not a party to the case.
But the May 15, 2025 meeting wasn’t a hearing nor held in a Courtroom.
I had no opportunity to respond during the ERC meeting.
No investigation was conducted.
No wrongdoing was ever found.
The Theory Advanced Later
Although never raised during the May 15 meeting itself, 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, the claim raises a basic question:
Since when does assisting someone in writing an email constitute the unauthorized practice of law?
Bush provided the ADO with several emails for comparison:
• two emails written by me
• one email written by Mr. Teeboom.
Those communications occurred months, and in one case more than a year, apart.
The Setup
Prior to the May 15 meeting, Mr. Teeboom had emailed Chairman Bush asking whether a non-attorney assistant could help him prepare for a hearing if his complaint advanced. Mr. Teeboom is 87 years old and wanted assistance in handling his exhibits.
Bush responded that the matter would likely need to be addressed by the full committee.
Instead, Bush requested a copy of Judge Colburn’s order from the City’s legal office, through ERC Clerk Perrin.
The committee was not copied on Perrin’s email.
The committee was not informed.
On the day of the meeting, the Clerk emailed Bush confirming:
“As you requested,” copies of the order would be brought for committee members and the public.
The committee itself had no opportunity to review the order beforehand.
The May 15 Meeting
At the start of the meeting, outside counsel Bob Sullivan suggested to the Committee addressing Mr. Teeboom’s procedural questions first. Bush refused. About an hour into the meeting, Bush asked Mr. Teeboom who he intended to use as a non-attorney assistant.
Mr. Teeboom answered: Laurie Ortolano.
Bush then launched into a lengthy accusation suggesting, without consulting his Board, that I had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, a criminal offense.
Mr. Teeboom immediately stated that I had not written his complaint and had not assisted him in drafting it. Bush then read the Colburn footnote into the record. Bush pointed toward me and stated:
“I think your conduct is a problem.”
The committee had not been consulted and appeared surprised by the accusation. One member immediately called for a non-public session for legal consultation. But by that point, the accusation had already been made publicly in the presence of both the public and the press. Two other Attorneys are members of the ERC, Dave Tencza and Lyndsay Robinson. Neither one called a point of order.
The Aftermath
I was stunned that an attorney presiding over a quasi-judicial body would publicly accuse a citizen of criminal conduct without investigation.
Bush later offered only to “correct the record” if the Colburn footnote proved inaccurate. I provided documentation showing the statement had been removed from the order. The committee never corrected the record.
Connections and Confidence
Attorney Bush has practiced law in Nashua for more than thirty years. He is well connected within the State’s legal community.
He currently serves on the Judicial Selection Commission, has connections within the Governor’s office, and has been appointed by the New Hampshire Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics. He sits elbow-to-elbow with many Judges. He has priviledges many do not.
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. The Clear and Convincing Evidence has been established.