Charles F. Perrault (2013)

warrants substantially different discipline in New Hampshire. by the court would result in grave injustice; or (3) the misconduct established due process; (2) the imposition of the same or substantially similar discipline lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of that: ( 1) the procedure followed by the jurisdiction imposing discipline was so finds, based upon the face of the record from which the discipline is predicated, court unless the respondent attorney or the PCC demonstrates, or the court Rule 37(12)(d) provides for the imposition of reciprocal"discipline by the

warranted. that the imposition of a three-month suspension, stayed for one year, was suspension, stayed for one year. The PCC notified the court that it believed Discipline Office that he did not object to imposition of a three-month unwarranted. Attorney Perrault informed the court through the Attorney imposition of identical or substantially similar discipline would be Conduct Committee (PCC) inform the court if either contended that the Perrault. It further ordered that Attorney Perrault and the Professional a copy of the order of the Supreme Judicial Court be served on Attorney In accordance with Supreme Court Rule··37(12)(b), the court ordered that

2. Rule 1.5(a), by charging a clearly excessive fee.

to adequately supervise the associate; and the estate was compatible with professional obligations, and by failing assure that the conduct of an associate assisting him as executor of 1. Rule 5.1(a) and (b), by failing to take reasonable measures to

violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: deceased client's estate. Specifically, Attorney Perrault was found to have Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct while serving as the executor of a discipline was based upon the determination that Attorney Perrault violated the months, but staying execution of the suspension for a period of one year. The (Massachusetts), suspending Attorney Charles F. Perrault for a period of three certified copy of an order of the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County On September 16, 2013, the Attorney Discipline Office (ADO) filed a

LD-2013-0011, In the Matter of Charles F. Perrault

File Charles F. Perrault, Esq. David M. Rothstein, Esq. Janet F. DeVito, Esq. Attorney Discipline Office Distribution:

DATE: December 3, p. 2 2013

matter. See Rule 37(19). Professional Conduct Committee in the investigation and prosecution of this Attorney Perrault is hereby assessed all expenses incurred by the

may request that the stay be made permanent. Supreme Judicial Court. At the conclusion of the one-year stay, either party education course on law office management required by the order of the year on the condition that Attorney Perrault complete the continuing legal months, but that imposition of the suspension be stayed for a period of one suspended from the practice of law in New Hampshire for a period of three Therefore, the court orders that Attorney Charles F. Perrault be

stayed for one year, should be imposed. Accordingly, the court concludes that a reciprocal three-month suspension, would warrant substantially different discipline in New Hampshire. year, would result in grave injustice, or that Attorney Perrault's misconduct does not find that the imposition of a three-month suspension, stayed for one Perrault participated in the Massachusetts disciplinary proceedings. The court concludes that none of these factors are present. It appears that Attorney Having reviewed the order of the Supreme Judicial Court, the court p. 3 File Susan Lakeway, NHBA Charles F. Perrault, Esquire Sara Greene, Esquire Janet F. DeVito, Esquire David M. Rothstein, Esquire Attorney Discipline Office Distribution:

Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.

stayed. month suspension imposed by the court on December 3, 2013, is permanently of such an order. Accordingly, Attorney Perrault's motion is granted; the three­ Attomey Discipline Office advised the court that it did not object to the issuance suspension. He stated that he had complied with the conditions of the stay. The issuance of an order stating that he was no longer subject to the three-month On January 21, 2015, Attomey Perrault filed a motion requesting the

be made permanent. stated that after the one-year stay period, either party could request that the stay three months, but staying the suspension for a period of one year. The court Charles F. Perrault from the practice of law in New Hampshire for a period of On December 3, 2013, the court issued an order suspending Attomey

order: Perrault, the court on February 9, 2015, issued the following In Case No. LD-2013-0011, In the Matter of Charles F.