PART 5 – Nashua Ethics Chair Bush’s Public Accusation and Disparaging Conduct
Investigative Narrative for Part 5
The events described below are not matters of interpretation. They are documented in meeting recordings, emails, and materials submitted to the Attorney Discipline Office. On May 15, 2025, during a public meeting of the Nashua Ethics Review Committee, its chair, Attorney Timothy Bush, publicly suggested that I had committed a criminal offense under RSA 311:7. I was not a party to the complaint being discussed, and no investigation had occurred. The allegation arose from a theory that two citizens asking procedural questions about an ethics process must have been secretly collaborating. The record tells a different story.
The May 15 Accusation
On May 15, 2025, during a public meeting of the Nashua Ethics Review Committee (“ERC”), Chair Attorney Bush publicly accused me of committing a criminal offense, the unauthorized practice of law under RSA 311:7.
The accusation was made during discussion of an ethics complaint filed by citizen Fred Teeboom.
I was not a party to that complaint.
I had no notice that such an allegation would be raised during the meeting.
No investigation had been conducted.
No evidence had been presented.
Yet in the middle of a public May 15, ERC meeting, while presiding over a quasi-judicial body, Attorney Bush suggested that I had engaged in conduct constituting a criminal offense.
Record reference:
May 15, 2025 ERC meeting transcript - Unauthorized practice of Law
Context of the Teeboom Complaint
The matter under discussion at that meeting involved an ethics complaint filed by Nashua resident Fred Teeboom.
Mr. Teeboom’s complaint concerned an ethics issue involving the President of the Board of Aldermen placing herself on the Pennichuck Water Board, a position carrying a stipend of approximately $10,000 per year.
I had no involvement in Mr. Teeboom’s complaint.
I did not draft the complaint.
I did not file the complaint.
I did not participate in meetings related to that matter.
I did not submit public comments regarding it.
The complaint was solely Mr. Teeboom’s initiative.
Likewise, ethics complaints I filed in 2023 and December 2024 were my own complaints alone. Mr. Teeboom played no role in those matters. Despite this lack of involvement, Attorney Bush publicly suggested that I had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by “assisting” Mr. Teeboom in writing an email.
The Evidence Cited
To support the allegation, Attorney Bush provided the Attorney Discipline Office with several emails.
Those emails show the following:
• Mr. Teeboom asking procedural questions about subpoena authority before the ERC, Exhibit 1
• Me asking procedural questions about subpoena authority in separate matters, Exhibits 2, 2b
• Emails written months, and in one case more than a year, apart,
The emails do not show collaboration.
They do not show legal advice.
They show citizens asking procedural questions about the rules governing a quasi-judicial process.
The Substance of the Emails
The first email cited by Attorney Bush was sent by Mr. Teeboom.
On May 5, 2025, Mr. Teeboom emailed ERC Chair Bush, Attorney Sullivan, and City Clerk Perrin asking about the committee’s authority to compel witnesses.
The email stated:
3. About Subpoena Power, the committee can adopt that as a rule under NRO 12-31. How can you hold a hearing fi no witnesses are compelled to appear, other than the defendant (whose appearance is not a requirement under NRO 12-31 (10)? For example, I may want to question city atty. Bolton, since he seems to have a lot to do with the circumstances leading to the Complaint against Wilshire (Read the Feb 25 minutes attached to my Complaint).
In a separate matter months earlier, a formal complaint submitted to the ERC included the following language:
“We are requesting the Ethics Committee grant subpoena power to call witnesses.”
More than a year earlier, on November 23, 2023, I sent an email to Attorney Bush regarding potential procedural rule changes.
That email stated:
“Perhaps at the November 30 meeting, your Board can change the rules to permit subpoenas to be served by the complainants. Your Board has the power to implement this change and vote to amend the rules.”
These communications occurred:
• in different matters
• across an eighteen-month period
• involving different complainants
Yet these unrelated communications were presented as evidence of a criminal offense.
“Request” vs. “Implore”
In describing these communications to the Attorney Discipline Office, Attorney Bush used different language to characterize similar conduct.
Mr. Teeboom was described as “requesting” subpoena power. My email was described as “imploring” the committee to adopt such authority.
The distinction is notable.
According to the Oxford Dictionary:
Request — to ask politely for something.
Implore — to beg someone earnestly or desperately to do something.
Nothing in the text of my email resembles begging or desperation. The tone of the email is procedural and matter-of-fact. The difference lies not in the emails themselves, but in how they were framed.
A Manufactured Narrative
The theory advanced by Attorney Bush was straightforward.
If two citizens asked similar procedural questions about witnesses, they must have been collaborating.
From that assumption, Attorney Bush publicly suggested that I had committed the unauthorized practice of law by “assisting” Mr. Teeboom in writing his email.
But the record shows something far simpler.
Three unrelated emails.
Written over eighteen months.
By different individuals.
Asking procedural questions about how a quasi-judicial body conducts hearings.
That is not evidence of a criminal offense.
What remains is conjecture. Conjecture is not evidence, and it is not an acceptable basis for publicly suggesting that a citizen has committed a criminal offense. Attorneys are bound by professional conduct rules requiring a factual foundation before making statements that impugn the conduct of others. When a licensed attorney serving as chair of a quasi-judicial body advances such an accusation without investigation or supporting evidence, the issue is no longer a procedural disagreement. It becomes a question of professional responsibility.
Conduct in a Quasi-Judicial Setting
The Ethics Review Committee is not merely a discussion forum. It is a body tasked with evaluating ethics complaints against public officials. Its chair presides over proceedings that affect reputations and public trust. Attorneys serving in such roles are expected to maintain impartiality, professionalism, and restraint.
Yet during ERC proceedings, Attorney Bush has repeatedly:
• dismissed attempts to correct procedural errors (noting difference between a hearing and screening meeting)
• discouraged debate among committee members (Board wanted to discuss rules, Bush said “No”)
• threatened removal of participants questioning misapplications of RSA 91-A
• reacted aggressively when procedural issues were raised – (I’ll remove you from the meeting, I will show you what a big boy I am.”)
These actions occurred while Attorney Bush was presiding over a quasi-judicial body responsible for evaluating ethical conduct.
The Consequence of Public Accusations
Accusing someone of criminal conduct carries serious implications.
When that accusation is made publicly by a licensed attorney presiding over an ethics committee, the reputational harm is significant. Such accusations should be supported by evidence and investigation.
In this instance, the allegation was based solely on unrelated emails asking procedural questions about witness testimony.
No investigation occurred.
No evidence of legal representation was identified.
·Yet the accusation was delivered publicly.
Accountability
Attorney discipline proceedings require proof by clear and convincing evidence, a standard requiring a firm belief or conviction that allegations are true.
This higher standard exists because the consequences of discipline can be severe, including suspension or loss of a law license and lasting damage to professional reputation.
But the same principle should apply when an attorney uses his position to publicly accuse a private citizen of criminal conduct.
The emails cited by Attorney Bush demonstrate only that citizens asked questions about the procedures governing an ethics process.
Transforming those questions into a public accusation of criminal conduct was not supported by evidence.
When such accusations occur under the authority of a public office, accountability is required. The conduct described above is therefore the subject of a complaint filed with the New Hampshire Attorney Discipline Office.