High Court Hears Linda Pepin Appeal

The Pepin appeal hinges on the court's reading of the insurance brokering and consulting statutes……Pepin's Attorney Andru Volinsky urged the court to consider the laws narrowly. He says as written, they contemplate the actual handling and procurement of insurance policies -- and not broader consulting on the employee benefits contained in any given policy…..The court greeted that argument with plenty of skepticism…….Justice Joeseph Nadeau told Volinsky that Pepin's defense didn't pass the what he called the laugh test.

"I mean isn't it clear that they knew she needed a license and they created this structure to overcome the necessity of a license?"

I think whatever their intent was, the statutory language is the statutory language. So we may all condemn the intent, but the question becomes since we all condemn the intent, we ignore the statutes?"

Volinsky has long insisted that's exactly what the state did……He pointed out that the precedent for applying the laws to non-licensees is limited, and questioned the motives behind his client's prosecution.

"This statute was apparently applied for fine purposed for the first time in the context of this case. For the first time ever, in a very public awkward case there almost seems that there was an effort because we have to get these people."

The state, meanwhile, characterized Pepin's prosecution as a reasonable effort to police numerous cut and dry violations.

"This is a case about the intentional activities of alpha directions through Linda Pepin……to make tens of thousands of dollars doing something she wasn't qualified to do, licensed to do, and knew she did not do."

That's the state's Attorney Andrew Blenkinsop…….. Blenkensop argued Pepin's conduct fully warranted at a minimum the 17 separate violations with which she was charged.…...Pepin has held that her work for the state should be seen as a single act of consulting……and not separate acts pegged to her receipt of individual payments…….Under questioning from Chief Justice John Broderick, Blenkensop struggled to justify the absolute method by which insurance regulators assessed their penalty.

"What the department did in looking at those 17 payments is they tried to come up with a formulation that would be an understandable rationale for the fine and that was to look for."

"It's understandable. But I'm just saying it may not be legitimate."

Broderick and Blenkinship went back and forth on this point for several minutes -- with no clear resolution.

"If they pay her 18 payments while she's doing the work it's 18 violations…..If they pay her 18 payments after the work is done you would not consider that 18 violations, Would you?"

There were clearly more than 17 violations in" this case. She received a payment 17 times, but she provided consulting for more times than that?"

So she may have committed a hundred violations, here?

"That is correct."

The high court's ruling has no timetable…….In a separate proceeding, the state has also sued Pepin to try and force her to repay the $187,000 she gained from her state work. That matter is pending before Rockingham County's Superior Court.