Attorney Could Draft Will For His Benefit But Did So Incompetently
A reprimand has been imposed on an attorney by the New Hampshire Supreme Court Professional Conduct Committee.
The attorney practiced primarily in California but handled New Hampshire matters on behalf of family and friends.
The misconduct related to his drafting of a will and trust documents for a longtime family friend, a grandfather-like figure who he called grandpa Lloyd.
Grandpa Lloyd had four daughters from a previous marriage. The documents devised $5,000 to each daughter with the remainder going to the attorney.
Mr. Dahlen died on June 24, 2013. Mr. Dahlen, long-since divorced at the time, had four daughters from his previous marriage. His Trust provided that $5,000 be transferred to each of his daughters upon the death of their biological mother, if she survived Mr. Dahlen. All personal effects were left to Mr. Godin’s parents (Dorian and Patricia Godin), as was any “remaining cash.” Mr. Dahlen left his home to Mr. Godin pursuant to the terms of the Trust. By the date of his death, however, Mr. Dahlen had already separately deeded his house to Mr. Godin, pursuant to a deed prepared by Mr. Godin and executed by Mr. Dahlen on June 12, 2013.
When grandpa Lloyd passed, the daughters were pissed. They claimed undue influence and initiated litigation that led to a bar inquiry.
The key finding in the litigation
[There was] uncontroverted testimony that Lloyd Dahlen was close to the Godin family and had a good relationship with Randy Godin and his family, and in fact had more frequent contact with them than with his biological children. At the evidentiary hearing in September, the petitioners did not provide any evidence that there was fraud or undue influence perpetrated on Lloyd Dahlen in the drafting and execution of the deed or his testamentary documents. The court finds that the intent in his will and trust was to primarily benefit the Godin family over his biological family. The deed transferring real estate was not the product of fraud, lack of capacity or undue influence.
The Professional Conduct Committee stipulated that the attorney did not violate Rule 1.8(c) by drafting the will and trust documents because of the close, familial-type relationship with grandpa Lloyd.
Mr. Godin and his parents were extremely close to Mr. Dahlen and enjoyed a familial relationship with him for nearly forty years. Mr. Godin referred to him throughout his life as “grandpa Lloyd” and considered him a “patriarch figure.” Mr. Dahlen spent time at the Godin family home nearly every day, spending holidays there and attending Mr. Godin’s graduations and most birthday parties. The Court’s Order of January 2015 recognizes this close relationship which was “uncontroverted” by Mr. Dahlen’s daughters. The ADO does not believe there is clear and convincing evidence of a Rule 1.8(c) violation.
The attorney did violate his duty of competence by failing to properly attend to the formalities of the execution of the documents.
At the time of the events giving rise to this disciplinary matter, Mr. Godin was living in California and practicing law almost exclusively there. He returned to New Hampshire in May of 2012 because his brother had committed suicide. Mr. Dahlen’s Will and Trust were executed in the immediate aftermath of that tragic event and all the attendant arrangements (Mr. Godin’s brother died without a will), which left Mr. Godin in a scattered frame of mind. Mr. Godin admits that he did not research New Hampshire law to confirm the requirements for a “selfproving” will, nor did he realize at the time of executed the documents that by notarizing his own signature he was violating RSA 455:2-a.
The matter was resolved by stipulation. (Mike Frisch)