A conservator who fails to promptly comply with an order of a Probate Court engages in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Rule 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Allegedly, the Probate Court appointed the respondent attorney, Susan Maignan, to serve as the conservator of Christopher Alexander in 2003. The Probate Court removed Maignan in 2010, because she allegedly failed to perform her duties, and it appointed a successor conservator, Patrick Poeschl. In May 2010, Poeschl requested an account and a copy of every document in the conservatee's file. Maignan did not provide a copy of every document in the conservatee's file and successfully filed an Aug. 6, 2010, motion to reconsider, in response to a July 26 order of the Probate Court that she provide a copy within 10 days. The Probate Court vacated Poeschl's appointment on Nov. 4, 2010, approved Maignan's account and accepted her resignation. The Statewide Grievance Committee found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the respondent attorney failed to promptly provide a copy of every document in the file to the successor conservator, as ordered by the Probate Court, in violation of Rule 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and to file a timely answer to the grievance complaint. The Statewide Grievance Committee reprimanded the respondent attorney.

VIEW FULL CASE