Case Study: Donnelly V. US
COMPLAINT
Margaret Donnelly, the named executor of the estate of Elinor R. Averell, filed a complaint against James P. Dillon, Esq., on or about January 21, 2016. Donnelly alleges that Dillon had neglected the matters related to the estate of Elinor R. Averell, failed to adequately account for assets, and had failed to respond to anyone including an attorney hired to succeed Dillon. Dillon has violated Mass.R.Prof.C. 1.3, 1.4, and 8.4(c).
FACTS
On July 16, 2010, Elinor R. Averell hired Attorney James P. Dillon to draw up a Last Will and Testament, Quitclaim Deed, and trust documents. Averell named Margaret Donnelly, the complainant, as the executor of the Elinor R. Averell estate, and Marjorie Jenkins as the trustee of the Elinor R. Averell …show more content…
To date the charities named in the trust distribution documents have not received any funds and Dillon took the liberty of determining that Angel Flight was a suitable beneficiary, as Med Flights for Children did not exist. What Dillon fails to mention is that Averell also stated in documents regarding her trust “If for any reason, any of the above named charities cease to exist, then its share shall be divided equally among the remaining named charities.” Due to the fact Angel Flight was not specifically named as a beneficiary, Dillon would have been required to request permission from the court, or the AGO to donate to Angel Flight in place of Medi Flights for Children. Per Assistant Attorney General Eric Carriker, there is no indication that Dillon ever took the steps necessary to name Angel Flight a beneficiary in place of Medi Flights for Children. This is obviously concerning, as there are several communications between Dillon and Keith D’Entremont from Angel Flight regarding the donation. In one communication D’Entremont asks for an update, and informs Dillon “we sure can use the support.” It is clear that Angel Flight was relying on receiving this donation, which they are not even legally entitled to, as Dillon failed to follow proper legal procedure. In Dillon’s answer, he claims that all that remains in reference to the charities is distributions of the funds. This statement is not true, as Dillon never provided an accounting of the distribution of the estate’s assets to the AGO, which is required before distributions can be made. It should also be noted that Dillon also failed to provide bar counsel with a proper accounting of the Elinor R. Averell
Margaret Donnelly, the named executor of the estate of Elinor R. Averell, filed a complaint against James P. Dillon, Esq., on or about January 21, 2016. Donnelly alleges that Dillon had neglected the matters related to the estate of Elinor R. Averell, failed to adequately account for assets, and had failed to respond to anyone including an attorney hired to succeed Dillon. Dillon has violated Mass.R.Prof.C. 1.3, 1.4, and 8.4(c).
FACTS
On July 16, 2010, Elinor R. Averell hired Attorney James P. Dillon to draw up a Last Will and Testament, Quitclaim Deed, and trust documents. Averell named Margaret Donnelly, the complainant, as the executor of the Elinor R. Averell estate, and Marjorie Jenkins as the trustee of the Elinor R. Averell …show more content…
To date the charities named in the trust distribution documents have not received any funds and Dillon took the liberty of determining that Angel Flight was a suitable beneficiary, as Med Flights for Children did not exist. What Dillon fails to mention is that Averell also stated in documents regarding her trust “If for any reason, any of the above named charities cease to exist, then its share shall be divided equally among the remaining named charities.” Due to the fact Angel Flight was not specifically named as a beneficiary, Dillon would have been required to request permission from the court, or the AGO to donate to Angel Flight in place of Medi Flights for Children. Per Assistant Attorney General Eric Carriker, there is no indication that Dillon ever took the steps necessary to name Angel Flight a beneficiary in place of Medi Flights for Children. This is obviously concerning, as there are several communications between Dillon and Keith D’Entremont from Angel Flight regarding the donation. In one communication D’Entremont asks for an update, and informs Dillon “we sure can use the support.” It is clear that Angel Flight was relying on receiving this donation, which they are not even legally entitled to, as Dillon failed to follow proper legal procedure. In Dillon’s answer, he claims that all that remains in reference to the charities is distributions of the funds. This statement is not true, as Dillon never provided an accounting of the distribution of the estate’s assets to the AGO, which is required before distributions can be made. It should also be noted that Dillon also failed to provide bar counsel with a proper accounting of the Elinor R. Averell