I have had discussions with the Attorney Discipline Office (ADO) about Nashua’s Corporation Counsel and his fitness for duty. I tried to address this matter confidentially first with an Alderman, then the Board of Alderman, and the Mayor. The topic was too hot to touch. I then turned to the ADO.
The Supreme Court has no method available for citizens to report a fitness for duty or mental health matter for people practicing in the legal profession. I witnessed a shift in Corporation Counsel’s performance after he suffered a stroke. He appeared unable to perform his job or control his temper. He became abusive, explosive, and harassing. The personal targeting appeared outside the bounds of his legal professional conduct rules.
The ADO Deputy informed me that I could not file a complaint on mental health or fitness for duty issues. Only the ADO could act on those types of problems, and they would report the matter to the Supreme Court.
One wonders how that works. How does the ADO receive information if they won’t accept the public’s complaints? I asked the ADO and received no response. Apparently, there is an antiquated grapevine system at work. I understand that these matters are sensitive, but I am somewhat insensitive to these “sensitivity concerns” having been the target of this attorney’s uncontrolled attacks. The Supreme Court’s approach to sweeping the matter under the rug, particularly given the type of work an attorney performs, can be extremely consequential. For me, it has been extremely consequential.
I recently attended a court hearing, and after the hearing, Corporation Counsel engaged in a personal, red-faced, angry, agitated attack on me. This attack was witnessed by an individual who was stunned and noted that they had never before seen that level of hatred directed from one person towards another. They were afraid he would physically attack me. The encounter was witnessed by the Nashua Deputy Corporation Counsel, who said nothing.
Those closest to Corporation Counsel appear to have chosen silence rather than addressing this sensitive issue to safeguard the Counselor and the City. This approach has created snowballing legal costs and serious liabilities for the municipality.
