Disbarred Democrat Congressional Hopeful Nadeau Wants A Do-Over On Prison Sentence

By Damien Fisher, NH Journal

Convicted and jailed for stealing from a mentally impaired client, disgraced Seacoast attorney Justin Nadeau filed notice he plans to appeal on the grounds there’s no proof his victim was actually impaired.

Except for the victim’s testimony, the testimony of attorneys who worked with her, and Nadeau’s own assessment in an email.

“[She] absolutely has a serious brain injury,” Nadeau wrote in an email used as evidence at trial.

Nadeau, 53, is serving a 7½-to-15-year prison sentence after a Rockingham County Superior Court jury convicted him in April on 15 felony counts connected to his theft of nearly $300,000 from a client who had suffered a traumatic brain injury—and his extended effort to cover up his crimes.

The former Portsmouth lawyer and one-time Democratic congressional candidate filed a notice of appeal with the New Hampshire Supreme Court on July 16. The notice is not a detailed legal brief, but it indicates he plans to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence that his victim was disabled.

Shawn Fahey hired Nadeau after she suffered a traumatic brain injury when an intoxicated driver struck her vehicle. During their business relationship, Nadeau persuaded Fahey to make him two loans totaling nearly $300,000. The loans were purportedly secured by a condominium he did not own outright and by the anticipated proceeds of a pending defamation lawsuit against the Portsmouth Police Department.

Nadeau told Fahey he was “strapped for cash” until the lawsuit was resolved, according to court records.

No medical expert testified at trial about the extent of Fahey’s impairment. Nadeau argues that omission undermines his two convictions for financial exploitation of a disabled adult, according to his notice of appeal and a motion he filed during the trial.

Rockingham County Superior Court Judge Lisa English rejected that argument in May, ruling that prosecutors did not need expert medical testimony to establish Fahey’s impairment.

Fahey testified, as did other witnesses who described her memory problems and confusion. But perhaps the most damaging evidence came from Nadeau himself.

At trial, Nadeau argued Fahey was not impaired when she lent him the money, pointing to other sound business decisions she made during the same period. Jurors, however, saw an email in which he described Fahey’s condition to another person.

“[She] absolutely has a serious brain injury,” Nadeau wrote. “[S]he may not sound like it over the telephone, but when you meet her you can tell.”

Taken together, English ruled, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to decide whether Fahey was impaired without testimony from a medical expert.

“As a result, the weight of the evidence does not mandate setting aside the exploitation counts,” English wrote.

The criminal case grew out of the tangled dealings uncovered during the investigation that ultimately cost Nadeau his law license.

The defamation lawsuit that supposedly left him “strapped for cash” traced back to another client who was arrested on drug charges.

When Portsmouth police arrested Christian Jennings, they allegedly found quantities of marijuana, Ecstasy, and amphetamines, along with a loaded gun and $42,000 in cash. According to police, Nadeau had been handling an $85,000 marina investment for Jennings before the arrest, though the deal never closed.

Nadeau sued after police began investigating whether he was laundering drug money. The defamation case was settled in 2019.

Nadeau’s dealings with Fahey went beyond the loans. The Attorney Discipline Office’s Professional Conduct Committee found he failed to disclose $165,000 he received after referring Fahey to a Massachusetts lawyer to handle her personal injury case. The committee investigated referral fees and other money Nadeau collected in connection with Fahey’s case.

According to court records, Nadeau slow-walked the production of documents during the disciplinary investigation. He later destroyed or concealed his office computer. Nadeau maintained that he made the required conflict-of-interest disclosures and eventually produced printed copies of letters he claimed he had sent Fahey.

But James Berriman, a computer expert hired by the disciplinary office, examined Nadeau’s office server and concluded the documents had false dates and were created after the investigation began. Berriman also found evidence that metadata had been altered.

“As a member of the PCC observed at oral argument before the PCC, ‘the Berriman Report and the spoliation of evidence, in my mind . . . is one of the most significant violations I have seen in decades of practice before the ADO before joining this committee,’” the New Hampshire Supreme Court wrote.

Nadeau fought his disbarment, but the Supreme Court ruled in April 2024 that he had crossed too many lines to remain a lawyer. The court found that he engaged in a “deliberate, multi-year effort to deceive the disciplinary authority.”

Now Nadeau is challenging the criminal convictions that followed, and he seems to have learned at least one lesson.

While he did file the appeal notice himself, he is requesting a public defender take the case and represent him before the Supreme Court.

This story was originally published by the NH Journal, an online news publication dedicated to providing fair, unbiased reporting on, and analysis of, political news of interest to New Hampshire. For more stories from the NH Journal, visit NHJournal.com.