NHCaseLaw.com

DUGGAN, J. The New Hampshire Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Conduct (JCC) determined that the respondent, Superior Court Judge Patricia C. Coffey, engaged in serious misconduct in violation of Canons 1 and 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct (the Code). See Sup. Ct. R. 38. This conclusion was based, in part, upon Judge Coffey’s admission that she aided her husband in protecting his assets from the reach of creditors and, consequently, impeded the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) in its efforts to collect on a valid, court-ordered debt. In light of its findings, the JCC recommended that Judge Coffey be: (1) publicly censured; (2) suspended without pay from all judicial duties and responsibilities for three months; and (3) ordered to reimburse the JCC for the expenses incurred in prosecuting her case. On appeal, Judge Coffey urges us to adopt the JCC’s recommended sanctions or, in the alternative, to reduce the sanction to public censure only. We adopt the JCC’s recommendation for public censure and grant its request for reimbursement, but we conclude, based upon the analysis that follows, that the three-month suspension must be increased to three years.

This action for civil conspiracy and violation of the Consumer Protection Act, RSA 358-A, was commenced in February 2001. The plaintiffs are three creditors of the defendants Reginald Gaudette, his wife Louise Gaudette (hereinafter the Gaudettes), and/or various corporations, partnerships or other entities which the Gaudettes controlled. The remaining defendants are Jeffrey Gaudette and Lisa Robinson, son and daughter of the Gaudettes; Edith and Lionel Gaudette, mother and father of Reginald; Thomas J. Thomas, Jr., Esq., Marc L. Van De Water, Esq. and Glenn C. Raiche, Esq. (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “the lawyer defendants”), attorneys who provided legal services to the Gaudettes or entities which they controlled; and Mark Ring, a certified public accountant (CPA) who provided accounting services for the Gaudettes or related entities. Plaintiffs’ amended bill in equity alleges that the defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud the plaintiffs, in their capacity as creditors of the Gaudettes or entities controlled by them, from collecting on their claims or judgments by sheltering or concealing assets of the debtors through a series of fraudulent transfers and the creation of various “shell” entities. Because most if not all of the allegedly fraudulent activities of the defendants occurred in connection with proceedings before the United States Bankruptcy Court involving, first, R & R Associates (a partnership in which Reginald Gaudette was a partner) and, later, Gaudette himself as debtors, the lawyer defendants now move to dismiss this case on the grounds that plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by federal bankruptcy law. I conclude that the lawyer defendants’ position is correct and that their motion must be granted.

The plaintiff brings this action seeking to set aside as fraudulent the transfer of Oscar Hickey's interest in certain property to his ex-wife Reta Hickey. The court has entered a default judgment against defendant Oscar Hickey. Defendant Reta Hickey, who was awarded the home by decree of legal separation from defendant Oscar Hickey, objects. For the reasons stated in this order, the court finds the property was not fraudulently conveyed.