Philip A. Brouillard (2013)

File

matter, asdiscussedearliertoday. Enclosed is the ReissuedRecommendation ofa Two YearSuspensionin the above referenced

RE: Brouillard, Philip A. advs.AttorneyDiscipline Office # 10-053

Date: January10,2013

From: Holly B. Fazzino,Administrator

Andrew S.Winters,Esquire To: James L. Kruse, AssistantDisciplinary Counsel

Richard H. Darling* Holly B.Fazzino,Administrator Alan J.Cronheim * non attorney member Thomas P. Connair LisaWellman-Ally Susan R. Chollet* Martha Van Oot Toni M. Gray,* Vice Chair 603-224-5828 ♦ Fax 228-9511 Richard D. Sager BenettePizzimenti,Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Heather E. Krans David M. Rothstein,Chair 4 ChenellDrive, Suite 102 ElaineHolden*

Jim

regard. 8.4(a).Rule8.1(a)would pertainto Mr. Brouillard'scooperationwithADO. He was notchargedwithaviolationinthat meant to beRule8.4(a),and, for purposes of thePetition,Ihaveassumedthatthe Committee intended to refer toRule referstoasuspension"basedon hisviolationsofRules3.3,8.4(c),and 8.1(a)/'IexpectthereferencetoRule8.1(a)was "RecommendationofaTwo YearSuspension"(PCC 22). At theend ofthesectiononSanctionatpage13,theorder willbe sendingup therecord.InthecourseofpreparingthePetition,InoticedatypographicalerrorintheCommittee's Holly:We areabouttofileaPetitionwiththeSupremeCourttoapprovethePCC'ssuspensionorderand Iexpectyou

Subject: Brouillard Cc: andrew@cohenwinters.com To: HollyFazzino Sent: Thursday,January10, 20139:27 AM From: Jim Kruse (603)224-5828 Fax (603)228-9511 Concord, NH 03301 4 Chenell Drive,Suite102 ProfessionalConduct Committee New Hampshire Supreme Court Administrator HollyB. Fazzino, MLSP

Thank you. I will arrange to reissue theOrder with the correction.

Subject: RE: Brouillard Cc: andrew@cohenwinters.com To: Jim Kruse Sent: Thursday,January10,2013 9:31AM From: Holly Fazzino

Holly Fazzino p. 3 Page 1 of14

hearings, exhibits andmemoranda.

record,includingtheNoticeofCharges,Answer,HearingPanelReports,transcriptsofthe

FollowingOralArgument,theCommitteedeliberatedthematterandconsideredtheentire

Brouillard,Esquire,and GladysStrickhart,LegalAssistanttoMr. Krusewerealsopresent.

fortheAttorneyDisciplineOffice,and Andrew S.Winters,Esquire,fortheRespondent.PhilipA.

OralArgumentwas presentedby JamesL. Kruse,AssistantDisciplinaryCounselpresented

GeraldA. Daleywas absent.BenettePizzimenti,ViceChairwas recusedand alsonotpresent.

AlanJ.Cronheim,RichardH. Darling,JamesR. Martin,RichardD. Sagerand LisaWellman-Ally.

Nelson,Chair,ToniM. Gray,ViceChair,SusanR. Chollet,DavidN. Cole,Thomas P.Connair,

thismatteron October16,2012. The followingmembers ofthePCC werepresent:MargaretH.

The ProfessionalConductCommittee("Committee")heldOralArgumentand deliberated

Brouillard,PhilipA. advs.AttorneyDisciplineOffice # 10-053

SupremeCourttosuspendMr. Brouillardfromthepracticeoflawfortwo yearsisappropriate.

3.3,8.4(c),and 8.4(a),agreeswiththeADO's recommendation,and findsthatapetitiontothe

reasonstheCommitteefindsbyclearandconvincingevidencethatMr. BrouillardviolatedRules

The ADO recommendsthatatwo yearsuspensionbe imposedwithno stay.Forthefollowing

lawfortwo yearswiththesuspensionstayedfortwoyearsbasedon certainconditionsbeingmet.

issuedaRecommended SanctionrecommendingMr. Brouillardbe suspendedfromthepracticeof

Afterasubsequenthearingon theissueofsanction,on September5theHearingPanel

July16,2012(the "Report").

PreliminaryOrderdatedJune9,followedby amore comprehensiveHearingPanelReportdated

A HearingPanelheldanevidentiaryhearingonMay 11,2012.The Panelissueda

misrepresentingmaterialfactsinsubsequentlitigationarisingoutofthatcontract.

appropriateinsurancecoveragetocoverthecostwhen he knew he hadnotdoneso,and (2)for

property,ofacontractforfloodrestorationservicesunderthefalsepretensehe hadpurchased

allegedtohaveoccurredinconnectionwith(1)hisexecution,astrusteeofatrustthatowned

HampshireRulesofProfessionalConduct3.3,4.1(a),8.4(a),and 8.4(c).Theseviolationswere

on January25,2012,subsequentlyamended,allegingthatMr. Brouillardhad violatedNew

Office("ADO") by theClerkoftheBelknapSuperiorCourt.The ADO issuedaNoticeofCharges

Thismattercame beforetheCommitteefollowingacomplainttotheAttorneyDiscipline

wherehe practiceslawand engagesinrealestateinvestmentand management.

New HampshireBarin1981. Mr. Brouillardmaintainsan officeat16 Academy Street,Laconia,

RespondentPhilipA. BrouillardisaNew Hampshireattorneywho was admittedtothe

I. SUMMARY OF CHARGES AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND p. 5 Page 3 of14

PresidentofBrookside.

contracton behalfoftheTrustaswellason behalfofBrooksideby signingMr. Lazos'name as

was notthepropertyowner'sinsurance,butwas thelessee'sinsurance.Mr. Brouillardsignedthe

Brookside'sinsurancepolicy,butdidnotindicateon thecontractthattheinsurancehe described

requestedinsuranceinformation.Mr. BrouillardprovidedFireCleanupwiththeinformationfor

had. When Mr. BrouillardcontactedFireCleanupitrequiredthathe executeacontractwhich

didnotdo so.As lesseeBrooksidewas alsorequiredtohaveinsuranceon itsproperty,whichit

contractuallyobligatedastrusteetomaintainliabilityandcasualtyinsuranceon thepremises.He

UndertheleaseagreementbetweenBrooksideand QuainTrust,Mr. Brouillardwas

services.

contactedFireCleanupServices,Inc.("FireCleanup"),torequestthatitprovidefirerestoration

damage astheresultofabrokensprinklerpipe.Afterbeingadvisedofthedamage Mr. Brouillard

whose PresidentisVasiliosLazos.On January28,2009,thepropertysufferedsignificantwater

propertyinBelmont,New Hampshire,leasedby BrooksideHouse ofPizza,Inc.("Brookside"),

Mr. BrouillardistheTrusteeoftheQuainTrust,whichowns aparcelofcommercial

thefactsfoundintheReport.Pertinentfactsfoundby theHearingPanelfollow:

The partiesdidnotstipulatetoany facts.FollowingdeliberationthePCC votedtoaccept

capacity as Trustee.

appliesifan attorneyisrepresentingaclient.Mr. Brouillardwas representingtheTrustinhisown

tofindaviolationofRule4.1(a).The HearingPanelso foundthatbecauseRule4.1(a)only

The CommitteealsoagreeswiththeHearingPanel'sconclusionthatthereisinsufficientevidence p. 6 Page 4of14

Cleanuptoprovideservicesunderfalsepretensesby knowinglymisrepresentingtheavailabilityof

duringthesubsequentBelknapSuperiorCourtlitigation.Therefore,Mr. BrouillardinducedFire

insteadattemptingtocollecton atenant'spolicy,informationhe alsofailedtoclarifytothecourt

thereafterthathe was thesoleownerofthepropertyand didnothaveinsurancecoverage,butwas

coveragewhilerepresentinghe had coverage.He failedtoclarifywithFireCleanupatanytime

Mr. BrouillardexecutedacontractwithFireCleanupServicesknowinghe didnothaveinsurance

The HearingPanelfoundby clearand convincingevidence,and theCommitteeagrees,that

measures,including,ifnecessary,disclosureto thetribunal.

evidenceand comestoknow ifitsfalsity,Rule3.3requiresattorneystotakereasonableremedial

offerevidencethatthelawyerknowstobe false."Furthermore,if alawyerhasofferedmaterial

afalsestatementofmaterialfactorlaw previouslymade tothetribunalby thelawyer...or(3)

lawyer"shallnotknowingly(1)make a falsestatementoffactorlawtoatribunalor failtocorrect

involvingdishonesty,fraud,deceit,ormisrepresentation.Rule3.3statesinpertinentpartthata

Rule8.4(c)statesthatitisprofessionalmisconductforalawyertoengageinconduct

agreementand Mr. Brouillardpaidalldamages soughtby FireCleanup.

Mr. BrouillardfiledacrossclaimagainstBrookside.The litigationwas eventuallysettledby

Cleanup'scharges,FireCleanupfiledalawsuitinBelknapSuperiorCourtagainstMr. Brouillard.

insurancepolicy.The claimwas denied.AfterMr. Brouillard'scontinuedfailuretopay Fire

he didnothaveinsuranceon theproperty.A claimforcoveragewas filedunderBrookside's

presentedMr. Brouillardwithabillforservices,Mr. Brouillardinformedthefirmforthefirsttime

AfterreceivingthecontractFireCleanupcompletedthework. When FireCleanup p. 7 Page 5of14

is to theprofessionratherthantoan individualorindividuals:Mr. Brouillard'sdishonestyand lack

the Committeeagrees,the injury stemming from theprofessionalmisconductin this circumstance

continuesto have goodrelationshipswithFireCleanupandMr. Lazos. As thePanelfound,and

Mr. Brouillardarguedto thePanelthatno one washarmedby his conductbecausehe

Hearing PanelRecommended Sanctionat 1.

availableto pay for the damage resulting from thefire. abletosignificantlymitigatetheirlossesbyensuringtheinsurancecoveragewas a significantfinancialgaintoMr. Brouillard(andtoMr. Lazos)astheywereboth result,which is whatMr. Brouillardintendedby hismisrepresentations,resultedin perform thework required, and haveBrookside'sinsurance cover the loss. That hewas togaina significantfinancialadvantageifhecouldgetFireCleanupto contraryto Mr. Brouillard'sargument,he didoperatefrom a selfish motive. Indeed

that

seriousthanan affirmativelyfalsestatement."The Panelalsofound,and theCommitteeagrees,

correcttherecordwith theCourt),thePanelrightfullyfoundthat"hisfailureofomissionis noless

faultofhisinaction(failingtonotifyFireCleanupthathe didnothaveinsurance,and failingto

primaryinsurer.AlthoughMr. BrouillardclaimedtotheHearingPanelhisactionsweremore a

him and withtheintenttobindBrookside'sinsurancecompany,whichshouldnothavebeenthe

FireCleanuptoinducethecompany toprovideserviceswithoutseekingpaymentinadvancefrom

InconsideringMr. Brouillard'smentalstate,itisclearthathe made therepresentationto

contractingthird party and a court.

Mr. Brouillardviolatedhisdutyofhonestyby makingan intentionalmisrepresentationbothtoa

tenant'sinsurancepolicy,knowingtherewas no propertyowner'sinsurancecoveragefortheloss.

undertooktobindthetenanttothecontractwithFireCleanuptofacilitateaclaimunderthe

propertyowner'sinsurancetopay forservicesrequiredtorestoretheproperty.He thenpurposely p. 8 Page 6of14

significantfinancialresultfromhisbehavior,bothinhavingFireCleanupperformserviceswithout

hislackofanunselfishorimpropermotive.Thisassertionisbeliedby thefactthathegaineda

Mr. Brouillardassertedto thePanelthat the most importantmitigatingfactorin his case is

contractualobligation to provide coverage.

notimpacthisdecisiontodrophisinsurancecoverageonthebuildingdespiteknowinghehad a

whichhismedicalconditionimpactedhisbehaviorexcepttofindthathismedicalconditiondid

playedinhisdecisionsinthismatter.The Panelfounditimpossibletodeterminethedegreeto

mediationprogram.Inaddition,thePanelconsideredtheroleMr. Brouillard'smedicalcondition

lettersfromcourtpersonnel,and hislongtimeactiveinvolvementin the Court's Rule170

bonoserviceto the NewHampshireBarAssociation,Mr. Brouillard'sgood character,including

documentsand testimonyevidencingMr. Brouillard'slonghistoryofpublic service,includingpro

MitigatingFactors: The Panelconsideredanumberofmitigatingfactors,including

benefitedboth himselfand Mr. Lazos.

Lazos,anddesireto maintainthatrelationshipmay haveresultedin his behaviorwhich ultimately

seems from these actions that Mr. Brouillard'spersonalrelationshipwith his businesspartner,Mr.

beingpersonallyinvolvedand blurringboundariesofprofessionalandpersonalrelationships.It

AggravatingFactors: Mr. Brouillard'stwo priordisciplinaryactionsincludea historyof

mitigatingfactors,including thefollowing:

and longtimelawpartner,RichardBrouillard.The Panelalsoheardevidence onaggravatingand

including Mr. Brouillard's clients Clayton Dunn and PeterDeJager,and Mr. Brouillard'sfather

During its hearing on sanction theHearingPanelheard from anumber ofwitnesses,

ofcandor causes damage to thepublic'sconfidencein the bar as awhole. p. 9 Page 7of14

152 N.H. 503,513 (2005).AlthoughtheCourthasnotadoptedthe Standards, itlookstothem for

303 (2009)."Thesanctionmusttakeintoaccounttheseverityofthemisconduct." Coffey'sCase,

legalprofession,andpreventsimilarconductinthefuture." E.g.,Conner'sCase, 158 N.H. 299,

power"istoprotectthepublic,maintainpublicconfidenceinthebar,preservetheintegrityofthe

sanctionedwithasuspension.The purposeoftheNew HampshireSupremeCourt'sdisciplinary

Lawyer Sanctions (1992) {"Standards") supporttheconclusionthat Mr. Brouillardshouldbe

CaselawinNew Hampshireand theAmericanBarAssociation's StandardsforImposing

misrepresentationsarerelevantto the issueofsanction.

believethattheTrusthadinsurancewhen Mr. Brouillardknew the Trusthad noinsurance.These

thiscontracttoFireCleanup,includinginformationregardinginsurance,causingFireCleanupto

Brookside,knowingthatMr. Lazoshad notsignedthecontract.Further,Mr. Brouillardpresented

servicestoFireCleanupthatpurportedlycontainedthebindingsignatureofMr. Lazoson behalfof

The HearingPanelalsofoundthatMr. Brouillardpresentedanexecutedcontractfor

factthatMr. Brouillardknew was false

made theinitialcalltoobtainservicesfrom FireCleanup.Thiswas arepresentationofmaterial

renderedatthepropertyinwhichhe statedthatVasiliosLazos,ownerandPresidentofBrookside,

initiatedby FireCleanupagainstQuainTrustand Brooksidetoobtainpaymentforservices

clearandconvincingevidenceofaviolation.Mr. Brouillardfiledacrossclaiminacivilaction

With respecttotheRule3.3charge,theHearingPanelfound,and theCommitteeaffirms,

insurancecompany.

paymentforseveralmonths,aswellasultimatelysecuringinsurancecoveragefrom Mr. Lazos' p. 10 Page 8of14

evidenceMr. Brouillard was not authorized to sign Mr.Lazo'sname, the Panel found that Mr.

BrouillardforgedMr. Lazos'ssignatureon thecontractbecause it lacked clearand convincing

Brookside was a party to the servicescontract.Although the Hearing Panel did not find that Mr.

(2) to set up a claim under Brookside's tenant'sinsurancepolicy based on thefalsepremisethat

did so inorder(1) to induceFireCleanup Servicesto provide services underfalsepretenses,and

Brouillardknew that he was misrepresentingtheavailabilityofpropertyowner'sinsurance,and he

Brouillard'sviolationofRule 8.4(c)involveda knowing and intentionalstateofmind. Mr.

The second prongofthe test requires analysisofMr. Brouillard's mental state. Mr.

Brooksidein contracting for such services.

twice made a materialmisrepresentationoffact to the Court relative to theinvolvementof

to theavailabilityofproperty ownerinsuranceto pay forrequested services. Mr.Brouillardalso

honestybymakingmisrepresentationsofmaterialfactand undertakingtodeceiveFireCleanupas

Under thefirstprongoftheanalysis,Mr. Brouillardbreachedhis dutyofcandorand

whether they affect the baseline sanction. See Conner's Case, 158 N.H. at 303.

thefourthand finalpartof theanalysis:theexistenceofany aggravatingormitigatingfactorsand

determining a baseline sanction.Afterthe baseline sanction isdeterminedthe Court then looks to

The firstthreepartsof theanalysiscreatetheframeworkforcharacterizingthemisconductand

ormitigatingfactors." Id (quoting Douglas'Case, 155 N.H.613,621 (2007)); Standards §3.0.

potentialoractualinjurycausedbythelawyer'smisconduct;and (d)theexistenceofaggravating

toconsiderinimposingsanctions:"(a)thedutyviolated;(b)thelawyer'smentalstate;(c)the

guidance. Conner'sCase, 158 N.H.at303. The Standards setfortha fourpartanalysisforcourts p. 11 Page 9of14

lawyer'sfitness to practice. fraud, deceit, ormisrepresentationthatseriouslyadverselyreflectson the (b) alawyerengages in any other intentionalconductinvolvingdishonesty,

or orconspiracyor solicitationofanother tocommit any ofthese offenses; controlled substances; or the intentional killingofanother; or an attempt misappropriation, or theft; or the sale, distribution orimportationof justice,falseswearing,misrepresentation,fraud,extortion, which includesintentionalinterferencewith theadministrationof (a) a lawyer engages in serious criminal conduct a necessary elementof

5.11 Disbarmentis generally appropriate when:

Section5.1:Failureto Maintain PersonalIntegrity

The Standards offer guidance in determining a baseline sanction as follows:

harm to the reputationoflawyers and the integrity of the legal profession.

requiredtolitigateitsclaimforpayment.Mr. Brouillard'sactionsalsocausedactualorpotential

FireCleanupproceededwith work on thejobwithoutits usualsecurityfor paymentand was then

Underthethirdprongof theanalysis,Mr. Brouillardcausedactualharm toFireCleanup.

his honestyand, therefore, his fitness to practice law.

underBrookside'sinsurancepolicy.Mr. Brouillard'sviolationsseriouslyandadverselyreflecton

subsequentDeclaratoryJudgmentactioninitiatedby him onbehalfoftheTrustseekingcoverage

andtoavoidliabilityunderthecontract.Mr. Brouillardrepeatedthemisrepresentationin a

withthelikelypurposetosupporthispositionthatMr. LazosauthorizedtheFireCleanupcontract

ofmaterialfactinacrossclaimfiledinFireCleanup'ssuittorecoverpaymentonthecontract,

Mr. Brouillard'sviolationofRule3.3involvedMr. Brouillard'sknowingmisrepresentation

signed it.

BrouillardpresentedthefullyexecutedcontracttoFireCleanupknowingthatMr. Lazoshadnot p. 12 Page 10of14 Reprimand. Section 5.14 and Section 6.14 use the term"Admonition."The mostanalogoussanctionin New Hampshireisa PublicCensure. Section5.13and Section 6.13 use the term "Reprimand." The most analogous sanction in New Hampshire is a

proceeding. party, or causes little or noadverseorpotentiallyadverse effect on the legal learningofits falsity, and causes little or no actual or potential injury to a documents are false or in failing to disclose materialinformationupon instanceofneglectindeterminingwhethersubmittedstatementsor 6.14 Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyerengagesin an isolated

potentiallyadverseeffect on the legal proceeding. potential injury to a party to the legal proceeding, or causes an adverse or actionwhen materialinformationis beingwithheld,and causesinjuryor determining whether statements or documents are false or in taking remedial 6.13 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer isnegligenteither in

an adverseor potentiallyadverse effect on the legalproceeding. causesinjuryor potentialinjury to a party to the legalproceeding,or causes informationisimproperlybeingwithheld,and takesno remedialaction,and statementsor documents are beingsubmittedto thecourtor thatmaterial 6.12 Suspensionisgenerallyappropriate when a lawyerknows thatfalse

adverseeffecton the legal proceeding. serious injury to a party, or causes a significant orpotentiallysignificant improperlywithholdsmaterial information, andcausesseriousorpotentially deceivethecourt,makes a falsestatement,submitsa falsedocument, or 6.11 Disbarment isgenerallyappropriate when a lawyer, with theintentto

Section6.1: FalseStatements,Fraud, and Misrepresentation

conduct that reflects adversely on the lawyer's fitness to practice law. 5.14 Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in any other 2 practicelaw. misrepresentation and thatadverselyreflects on thelawyer'sfitness to any other conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 5.13 Reprimand isgenerallyappropriatewhena lawyerknowinglyengagesin

and that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice. criminalconduct which does not containtheelements listedinStandard 5.11 5.12 Suspensionisgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyerknowinglyengagesin p. 13 Page 11of14

thecasecontraryto the court'sorderand agreedtofilepleadingsthat wereprocedurallydefective,

proceeding.Mr. Brouillardcounseledhisclienttocommunicatewithherminorsonaboutissuesin

1.1,2.1,and 1.7inconnectionwith hisparticipationascounselforhisgirlfriendin herdivorce

censure. (Brouillard,PhilipA. advs.John J. Moynihan -#10-003) Mr. BrouillardviolatedRules

2011 theCommitteeapprovedMr. Brouillard'sstipulationtomisconductand issueda public

genuinelyremorsefulforthecourseofconductand earnestlyapologizedforhisfailures.InMarch

legaland practicalaspectsof thecase.The CommitteefoundthatMr. Brouillardappeared

behalfofhis client aspromisedandrepeatedlyfailedtocommunicatewith his clientaboutthe

(Brouillard,PhilipA. advs.S. JonathanLowe - WO-N-149) Mr. Brouillardfailedtofilesuiton

was reprimandedinDecember2004 forviolationsofRules1.4and 1.3,towhichhehad stipulated

his selfish or dishonest motivation, and hisrecordofpriordisciplinaryinfractions.Mr. Brouillard

AggravatingfactorsincludeMr. Brouillard'sextensiveexperiencein thepracticeoflaw,

"particularlycredible."

Brouillard'stestimonyregardingthecircumstancesunder which he signed the contractwas not

accordedthis mitigatingfactor,however, isreducedby theHearingPanel's finding that Mr.

hisexpressionofremorseand acceptanceofresponsibilityforhismisconduct.The weight

mitigatingfactorisMr. Brouillard'scooperativeattitudein thedisciplinaryprocess,combinedwith

lightoftheaggravatingand mitigatingfactors. E.g.,Conner'sCase, 158N.H. at 303. A

disbarment or suspension. Standards §§ 5.11(b)and 6.12.This baseline sanction is considered in

Under the circumstances presented in this case, the appropriate baseline sanction is p. 14 Page 12of14 considerationofMr. Brouillard'spubliccensure,therecordfullysupportstheCommittee'sOrder. thecloseproximityoftheseeventsandthesimilarityofissues,theCommitteedeemed itrelevant.However,absent The Committeeismindfulthatthesanctioninthismatterwas issuedfollowingthefactsoftheinstantmatter.Given

substantialexperiencein thepracticeoflaw andhis selfish or dishonest

penalties(lossofMr. Bosse'srealestatelicense).AggravatingfactorsincludedMr. Bosse's

cooperation,expressionofremorse,and admissionsofmisconduct;and theimpositionofother

tosellhisproperty.The CourtfoundmitigationinMr. Bosse'slackofpriordiscipline;his

profession,theCourtfoundno actualharm totheNetworkortothesellerwho was notcompelled

disbarment. Standards §5.11.Althoughtherewas substantialharm totheintegrityofthelegal

deliberatelyinundertakingtodeceivetheNetworkadministratorand thatthebaselinesanctionwas

The CourtsustainedtheCommittee'sfindingthatMr. Bosseactedintentionallyand

effect."

representedfalselytotheNetwork'sadministratorthatthepurchaseand saleagreementwas "in

uploadedthelistingtotheNorthernNew EnglandRealEstateNetwork(Network).Mr. Bosse

agreementforahousetobe builton thepropertywithouttheseller'sconsentorauthorization,then

Mr. Bossepreparedand signedtheseller'sname toapurchaseand saleagreementand listing

communicatedwithoneofthebuilders.Believingthatthesellerwouldagree(whichhe didnot),

theirland.Followingcontactfromalandownerinterestedinsellinghisproperty,Mr. Bosse

agent,notifiedlandownersinHillsboro,New Hampshire,thathe had buildersreadytopurchase

instructive.Mr. Bosse,aNew Hampshireattorneywho was actinginhiscapacityas arealestate

exhibitedapatternofnegligenceand thathe engagedinan egregiousconflictofinterest.3

redundant,meritless,and sometimesvexatious.The CommitteefoundthatMr. Brouillard p. 15 Page 13of14

reinstatement.

associatedwith the investigation and prosecutionof this matter, wish payment in full prior to

New HampshireSupremeCourtfor a two yearsuspension.The Committeevotedtoassessallcosts

The Committee hereby directs Assistant Disciplinary Counsel to file a Petition with the

suspendedfrom the practiceof law basedon hisviolationsof Rules 3.3, 8.4(c),and8.4(a)

For theabove reasons,theCommittee voted torecommend thatMr. Brouillardbe

petitionthe NewHampshireSupremeCourttosuspendMr. Brouillardfor twoyears.

thepurposesof attorney discipline in NewHampshire,the Committeefinds that it isappropriateto

consideringthe four-part analysis recommended by the Standards, New Hampshire case law, and

disciplineimposed by the New HampshireSupremeCourt in Bosse and Grew. Accordingly,

In lightofthe above circumstances, Mr. Brouillard's sanction should be comparable to the

he has adisciplinaryrecord.

subject to otherpenalties,hismisconductis not fairlycharacterizedas an"isolatedincident,"and

without its usualsecurityand having to litigate its claim forpayment, Mr. Brouillardhas not been

from Bosse insofar as FireCleanup suffered discernible harm byhavingtoperform on thecontract

The present case involves similar aggravating and mitigating factors. It is distinguishable

for two years. See alsoGrew's Case, 156 N.H. 361 (2007).

misconduct.Itrejectedthe Committee'srecommendationofdisbarmentand suspendedMr.Bosse

Mr. Bosse had engaged in an isolated incident rather than a pattern or prolonged courseof

motive.The Courtdistinguishedthe Bosse casefrom otherdisbarmentcasesin part byfindingthat p. 16 Page 14of14

File Andrew S.Winters,Esquire James L. Kruse,AssistantDisciplinary Counsel Distribution:

January10,2013 "^ c^^ , iP • C^c ^