Charles F. Perrault (2007)

File Charles F. Perrault, Esquire Landya B. McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel James L. DeHart, General Counsel Distribution:

September;:;}Z, 2007

when imposing sanctions. Although the Court has never formally adopted these Standards, the Court has considered them ABA Center for Professional Responsibility, Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1991). Esquire. This sanction is in accord with the purpose of attorney discipline as described by the The Professional Conduct Committee hereby issues a reprimand to Charles F. Perrault,

the imposition of the identical or substantially similar discipline inappropriate. The New Hampshire Supreme Court did not identify any circumstance that would make

1.3, 1.4(b), 1.7(a) and 1.7(b). public reprimand to Mr. Perrault on June 21, 2007, for violating Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.1, 1.2( a), Reprimand No. 2007-18. The Board accepted the stipulation ofthe parties and administered a Attached hereto is a summary of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers' Public

Court, to issue a Reprimand in accordance with NH S. Ct. Rule 37(l2)(d). This matter was remanded on September 20,2007, from the New Hampshire Supreme

Gerald A. Daley* Holly B. Fazzino, Admin. Coordinator Alan 1. Cronheim * non attorney member Thomas P. Connair James 1. Tenn, Jr. David N. Cole David N. Page* Toni M. Gray, * Vice Chair 603-224-5828. Fax 228-9511 James R. Martin Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Gretchen Rule Hamel Margaret H. Nelson, Chair 4 Chenell Drive, Suite 102 Richard H. Darling*

DATED: ~-d-I-07

ADJUDGED that Charles F:. Perrault, Esq., be and hereby is PUBLICLY· the Rules of the Board of Bar Overseers, Section 3.56, it is ORDERED AND Whereupon, pursuant to Supreme Judicial Court Rule 4:01, Section 8(3), and summary of the charges giving rise to the reprimand is attached to this order. and ADJUDGED that Charles F. Perrault, Esq. be and he is publicly reprimanded. A

accept the stipulation of the parties and their joint recommendation. It is ORDERED by the imposition of a public reprimand. On June 11, 2007, the Board voted to Stipulation of the Parties waiving hearing and requesting that the matter be resolved This matter came before the Board on a Petition for Discipline and a

Respondent Charles F. Perrault, Esq., BBO No. C2-2004-0104 v. Public Reprimand No. 2007-18

finances. Ann told Mr. Perrault that the sisters wanted to give her their New Hampshire they jointly owned because of her continuing help in caring for them and handling their Ann told Mr. Perrault that the sisters wanted to give her two pieces of real estate that the sisters had signed wills leaving their property to Ann at the end of the prior week. Ann asked Mr. Perrault to prepare two deeds for the sisters. Mr. Perrault was not aware that Ms. Morrow was away on vacation and Mr. Perrault was back in the office and took the call. On Tuesday, January 2,2001, Ann called the Perrault office once again. At this point, signature was witnessed by two witnesses and the paralegal signed each will as notary. paralegal brought the wills to· the hospital to be signed. Each sister signed her will, each Ms. Morrow prepared wills for the sisters as requested. On December 29,2000, the jointly by the sisters, such that Ann would effectively only inherit after the second sister died. property to her in exchange for her help .. All financial accounts and real estate were owned Morrow that neither of the sisters had any children and that both sisters wanted to leave their that she prepare wills for each of the sisters leaving their estates to Ann. Ann told Ms. On or about December 28, 2000, Ann telephoned Ms. Morrow again and requested her power of attorney and the paralegal notarized the sisters' signatures. be signed by the sisters on December 27,2000. The paralegal did so, and each sister signed request, Ms. Morrow then asked an office paralegal to bring the documents to the hospital to two durable powers of attorney, one for each sister and both in favor of Ann. At Ann's After discussing Ann's request with Mr. Perrault by telephone, Ms. Morrow prepared Hampshire. owned two pieces of real estate-their house in Methuen and a condominium in New Ann also told Ms. Morrow that the sisters might also want wills prepared and that they and that both Ida and Julia, the other sister, had asked Ann to help them with their finances. Morrow that one of the sisters, Ida, was hospitalized and apparently did not have long to live, attorney for her elderly cousins appointing Ann as their attorney-in-fad. Ann informed Ms. on vacation, and Ms. Morrow took the call. Ann asked Ms. Morrow to prepare powers of On December 26, 2000, Ann telephoned Mr. Perrault's law office. Mr. Perrault was receive any specific legal advice or assistance. to her in exchange for her help. This conversation was general, and Ann did not request or told Mr. Perrault that the sisters had no children and were considering leaving their property asked her to become involved in helping them with their affairs and their finances. Ann also told Mr. Perrault that she had two elderly cousins who were sisters and who had recently and Ms. Morrow had represented on some personal matters over the prior three years. Ann In late 2000, Mr. Perrault received a telephone call from a woman (Ann) whom he received public reprimands for their conduct as follows. employee associate. Mr. Perrault and Ms. Morrow (see Public Reprimand No: 2007-19) and Associates, in Methuen, Massachusetts. In 1996, Ms. Morrow joined the practice as an 1992. In 1990, Mr. Perrault began a private practice under the name of Charles F. Perrault 1985. Elizabeth A. Morrow was admitted to the Bar of the Commonwealth on December 18, Charles F. Perrault was admitted to the Bar of the Commonwealth on January 18,

reprimand to the respondent. 11, p. 4 2007, the Board voted to accept the stipulation ofthe parties and to administer a public violations and a joint recommendation that a sanction of public reprimand be imposed. On June This matter came before the Board of Bar Overseers on a stipulation of facts and rules explain the effect of the deeds on the wills the sisters had previously signed. competent to sign the deeds and did so freely and voluntarily. The paralegal did not, however, each sister understood the purpose and effect of the deeds. She also believed that each sister was life estate in the Methuen property, giving her the right to live there. The paralegal believed that properties to Ann. In response to a question from Julia, she explained that Julia was retaining a sister what she was about to sign and described them as deeds transferring her interest in the paralegal met with the sisters at the nursing home to sign the deeds, she discussed with each modest fees totaling $966 for the preparation of the documents. In further mitigation, when the In mitigation, Mr. Perrault had no personal interest in the representation other than violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3 and 1.4(b). competent to sign the documents and was not subject to any undue influence, Mr. Perrault each of the sisters understood the import of the documents, agreed to their terms, was In preparing deeds for the signatures of the sisters without taking steps to assure that in their execution, Mr. Perrault violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.7(a) and 1.7(b). In preparing deeds for the signatures of the sisters at the request of Ann and assisting waived her claim to the New Hampshire condominium. Julia's name or her name only; and she deeded the Methuen property back to Julia. Julia accounts of Julia and Ida that she had transferred as attorney-in-fact to accounts in her and having died shortly after suit had been filed); she relinquished control over joint bank In July of 2003, the case was settled. Ann waived any right to probate Ida's will (Ida documents. documents when they signed them; and that Ida had not been competent to sign the wills and deeds were procured through undue influence; that they did not understand the executed a new will. The sisters filed suit against Ann alleging that the powers of attorney, in reclaiming their property. She subsequently revoked the will prepared by Ms. Morrow and In March of 2001, Ann and Julia quarreled. Julia retained a lawyer to assist the sisters advice of independent counsel in connection with the deeds. subject to any undue influence. l\1r. Perrault took no steps to assure that the sisters had the the documents, agreed to their terms, was competent to sign the documents and was not Mr. Perrault took inadequate steps to assure that each of the sisters understood the import of In preparing the deeds for the signatures of the sisters and assisting in their execution, had differing interests in connection with the documents. executing them, Mr. Perrault was providing legal services to the sisters. Ann and the sisters substantial legal rights of the sisters. In preparing the deeds and assisting the sisters in The deeds prepared by Mr. Perrault were significant donative documents affecting the deeds. signatures. Mr. Perrault then caused both deeds to be recorded in the appropriate registries of nursing horne to be signed by the sisters. The paralegal did so and notarized the sisters' January 5, 2001, Mr. Perrault asked another office paralegal to bring the deeds to Ida's Mr. Perrault caused deeds to be prepared transferring the properties as requested. On Julia could live there the rest of her life. condominium outright, and that they wanted to give her their horne in Methuen as long as