In re Wyatt’s Case
New Hampshire Supreme Court
159 N.H. 285, 982 A.2d 396 (2009)
- Written by Paul Neel, JD
Facts
Donald Wyatt (defendant) represented David Stacy in several matters. Wyatt’s firm prepared a general power of attorney authorizing Michel Brault, Wyatt’s friend and chief executive officer of a former corporate client of Wyatt’s firm, to manage Stacy’s finances. A court approved Stacy’s petition for Brault to be appointed Stacy’s conservator. As Stacy’s conservator, Brault retained Wyatt to represent Stacy’s estate and permitted Wyatt to represent Stacy in personal matters. Doubting Brault’s ability to oversee Stacy’s affairs, Wyatt advised Brault on managing the conservatorship at the same time Wyatt was representing Stacy. Wyatt discovered that Brault was shirking his duties as conservator, and Stacy and his wife, Svetlana, sought to circumvent the conservatorship by opening lines of credit and other accounts. Wyatt advised Brault to hire help to manage the conservatorship and recommended an accounting firm and Wyatt’s own paralegal for a fixed fee. During this time, Wyatt continued representing Stacy’s estate and Stacy in several other personal matters. The Supreme Court Professional Conduct Committee (plaintiff) initiated disciplinary proceedings, found that Wyatt had a conflict of interest, and recommended that the New Hampshire Supreme Court disbar Wyatt.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hicks, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.