A Singularly Bitter Break Up Leads To A Public Reproval

The California State Bar Court Hearing Department has imposed a stipulated public reproval of an attorney who pled no contest to charges of domestic battery and engaged in frivolous litigation against the victim.

On May 12, 2012, respondent and her then spouse attended a party but left early and returned home due to respondent’s high level of intoxication.

When respondent arrived home, she became irate, began yelling and screaming at her spouse, and began throwing and breaking items in the house.

Respondent’s spouse exited the house to avoid a confrontation and called the police. He then entered the garage and found respondent, who continued to yell profanities at him, seated in his car. As respondent’s spouse attempted to calm respondent down, respondent scratched his arms and hands.

Thereafter, respondent left the garage and reentered the house where she continued to break items including a phone-fax machine, a computer and the glass front door.

Respondent ran to the houses of nearby neighbors and continued to yell and scream profanities, resulting in a least one of the neighbors calling police to report a trespasser.Respondent was visibly intoxicated, had difficulty maintaining her balance and was yelling profanities when Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) officers arrived.

During the course of their investigation, the officers observed redness, and scratches and bruises on both respondent and her spouse. LAPD officers arrested respondent for spousal battery. Respondent waived her Miranda rights and stated that she became angry and pushed a computer off a desk. At that time, however, respondent denied scratching or striking her spouse.

Respondent successfully completed probation.

In the ensuing divorce process, the attorney was sanctioned for frivolous litigation against the spouse.

By filing the lawsuits in case nos. LC100377, LC102075 and LC102192, and the appeal in case no. B261082 on behalf of herself that were frivolous, without merit, or prosecuted for improper purpose, respondent failed to maintain such action and proceedings only as appear to her legal or just, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068

There was mitigation

Respondent’s good character has been attested to by ten individuals, including three attorneys, three former clients, and a banker who are aware of her misconduct and who hold her in high regard, lauding her integrity, honesty, competence, dedication to her clients and her community. Respondent’s character letters are representative of a wide range of members of the general and legal communities who are aware of respondent’s misconduct in connection with the present matters, and as such, respondent is entitled to credit in mitigation for good character.

She had sought treatment for alcohol abuse and had insight into the misconduct

 Respondent acknowledges that alcohol consumption has led her to exercise poor judgment in her personal life in the past and in order to address this problem, she voluntarily enrolled herself in New Directions for Women residential alcohol and drug rehabilitative and sober living program in October 2016. While enrolled in the residential treatment program respondent participated in individual and group therapy counseling, attended Alcoholics Anonymous daily, and worked with her case manager to prepare a comprehensive discharge plan to help her stay sober and return to her community to live a life free from substances. Respondent successfully completed the program in December 2016. By voluntarily enrolling herself into and completing New Directions for Women residential alcohol and drug rehabilitative and sober living program, respondent has demonstrated recognition of her wrongdoing

…respondent recognizes that her zealous self-representation in her dissolution and related legal matters caused her to lose sight of ethical responsibilities and has retained an attorney to assist her with her remaining legal matters. Respondent’s acceptance of and insight into her misconduct suggests that the misconduct is not likely to recur.

There is another reason that the misconduct likely will not recur, as recounted in an opinion of the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two imposing sanctions for a frivolous appeal

We have no difficulty concluding that this appeal is totally and completely without merit. The trial court found no evidence in appellant’s motion to support disqualification. On appeal, Ms. Perreault has doubled down on a bad bet by failing to present this Court with either the motion to disqualify or the opposition to it, thereby insuring that there would be no evidence on which to even review the trial court’s ruling. Apart from submitting an inadequate appendix to this Court, Ms. Perreault’s brief is incoherent, replete with vindictiveness rather than legal reasoning.

Focusing on appellant’s bad faith, we conclude that this appeal was prosecuted for an improper motive. We observe that Ms. Perreault has a history of tormenting her former husband, the now-deceased Andre Perreault, to the point of physically assaulting him, resulting in her criminal conviction for domestic violence. Though Ms. Perreault was prevented from physically attacking decedent as a result of restraining and protective orders, we may infer that her baseless attack on decedent’s counsel, Mr. Janner, was intended to harass decedent, even as he was dying of cancer, and to force decedent to needlessly expend his energy and financial resources to fend off Ms. Perreault.

To give a concrete example of appellant’s bizarre conduct, this Court notified the parties on August 28, 2015, that a successor-in-interest had to substitute into the case because Andre Perreault died while the appeal was pending. A few days later, Attorney Janner asked for a brief continuance because the matter was pending in the probate department, which appointed a special administrator on September 22, 2015. Ms. Perreault filed meritless opposition to the request for a continuance, submitting to this Court an incomprehensible document weighing nearly one and one-half pounds and containing e-mails, bank statements, her marital dissolution judgment and other items that are entirely irrelevant to the appointment of a special administrator to represent decedent’s interests. Further, Ms. Perreault petitioned to have herself appointed as the administrator of decedent’s estate while she had multiple lawsuits pending against decedent, an obvious conflict of interest.

Ms. Perreault’s conduct falls far short of the professionalism expected of a lawyer. She has lost sight of her responsibilities as an officer of the court while waging a vendetta against her former husband and his family, wasting judicial resources in the process. On its own motion, the Court imposes sanctions of $5,000 against Ms. Perreault to discourage like conduct in the future.

It appears that the late husband was a sound re-recording mixer with The Vampire Diaries and The Originals. (Mike Frisch)