Attorney Julie Gaudreau

Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer


“I hired DelSignore Law to help represent me in the district court after being charged with OUI. Either Attorney DelSignore or Attorney Gaudreau were always available to answer any questions I had and helped walk me through the process. I could not have done it without all of their help and support. I highly recommend choosing this law firm to deal with your legal needs, you will not be dissatisfied!”

– Client testimonial, October 2017

Our Results

  • License suspension due to an immediate threat overturned at the Board of Appeals
  • Client has license reinstated during the pendency of his case
  • License reinstated for client after immediate threat suspension
  • Client’s license reinstated at the Plymouth Board of Appeals

Attorney Julie Gaudreau

Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer

Attorney Gaudreau earned her Bachelor’s of Science in Criminal Justice from Curry College in Milton Massachusetts. She then attended Suffolk University Law School in Boston Massachusetts where she received the award for Distinguished Oral Advocate and made the Dean’s list every time. She also attended a DUI Defense Law course at Harvard Law School back in 2014 and 2017.

Attorney Julie Gaudreau has had many successful outcomes for cases while at DelSignore Law. She even offers free consultations that are 100% confidential over the phone. Whenever you find time and are ready to discuss your case Attorney Gaudreau will gladly take the time to help you whether it is in person or over the phone you will get the best advice possible.


Board of Appeals

License suspension due to an immediate threat overturned at the Board of Appeals

In this case, the client was involved in a motor vehicle crash which resulted in an OUI charge. Attorney Gaudreau attended the board of appeals hearing alongside the client in Marlborough, where she made an argument that the client had a history of safe driving and does not have a criminal record. Subsequently, the clients license was reinstated with no conditions, as Attoney Gaudreau’s arguments showed the RMV that the client is a responsible motorist in Massachusetts.

Client has license reinstated during the pendency of his case

Attorney Julie Gaudreau attended the clients board of appeals hearing, where she made an argument that the RMV reinstate the clients license while his case is pending in court. Attorney Gaudreau was successfully have the clients license reinstated with the condition that he use an ignition interlock device in his vehicle.

License reinstated for client after immediate threat suspension

In this case, our client was involved in a collision with two other parked cars. The client was not arrested, but the police requested an immediate threat suspension, citing the client’s medical history made her unfit to operate a vehicle in Massachusetts. At the board of appeals, a DelSignore Law attorney was able to exemplify the client was in fact medically suitable to drive, and used letters of recommendation showing that client’s medical conditions did not affect her ability to drive safely. The clients licensed was fully restored without any restrictions.

Court Process:

Registry hearing

If you refuse to take the breath test the police officer will take your license. You then have 15 days to challenge the suspension of your license. If you don’t do it within the 15 days, you risk losing your license automatically for six months. While at the hearing it may be necessary to address Breath Test Refusal, the possibility of your receiving a Hardship License, or issues relating to getting an Ignition Interlock Device (IID).


You will either plead "guilty" or "not guilty. You and your attorney will gather the documents needed to defend your case. Sometimes your attorney can talk to the DA and try to get it resolved before a trial. For example if it is your first offence you may be able to get a hardship license and take the 24D program at the RMV. (alcohol education class)


Pretrial is putting together all the evidence to see if they have enough to convict you by going to trial. They will question the officers, look at all the documents, and go over your criminal record. Sometimes this is when plea deals come into place because there could be a limited amount of evidence that might not help them convict you. For first time offenders, they will offer you the lesser ramifications to avoid a trial.


If you do not get a plea deal you will have a trial by judge and jury. The DA will present their findings and call witnesses. You may be allowed to speak if you and your attorney deem it necessary. Ultimately the decision is in the hands of weather the jury thinks your guilty or not beyond a reasonable doubt. Then the judge will sentence once the jury has a verdict.

Julie Wins

Client fell asleep while driving and collided with a stone wall. Officer testified that when he arrived he smelled an odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from the client’s breath and that she had slurred speech and bloodshot glassy eyes. Officer further testified that she failed two field sobriety tests. On cross examination Attorney Gaudreau was able to show that the officer only thought the client’s speech was slightly slurred and that she was alert, cooperative and showed good judgement in reporting the accident herself. She was also able to show that the client performed the nine step walk and turn very well; maintaining a straight line throughout and only missing heel to toe on two out of eighteen steps. Lastly, Attorney Gaudreau was able to present booking video evidence that showed the client had good balance, clear speech and showed fine motor skills. After a trial before the judge the client was found NOT GUILTY.

Client observed attempting to leave Target with more than $400.00 of goods. When confronted by loss prevention and police officers client admitted to attempting to leave without paying for goods. At the clerk’s hearing Attorney Gaudreau was able to explain that the client had no prior record and that she was dealing with significant health and mental issues at the time of the incident. The Clerk did not issue the complaint and the client’s criminal record is clean.

State trooper observed client driving on Route 290. A run of the client’s vehicle showed that the plates attached to the car belonged to a van and that the vehicle’s registration was revoked. The client was pulled over and subsequently admitted to the trooper that he had put the wrong plate on his vehicle to drive to work. Attorney Gaudreau was able to explain that the client had correctly registered his car and the compliant was dismissed on $100.

Client was pulled over in Hull after officer observed her driving on the dividing line of travel, without her headlights on. Officer testified client had red bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, smelled of alcohol and could not complete the alphabet test. At trial, Attorney 

Gaudreau was able to cross examine the office about the nature of the roadway and the client’s balance. The evidence showed that the area of the roadway was confusing and that the client never swerved or weaved while driving and that she appropriately drove through two intersections. Attorney Gaudreau was also able to elicit testimony that the client was cooperative and had no difficulty conversing with the officer or maintaining her balance. After a bench trial client was found not guilty.

Wrentham District Court- Client rear ended another vehicle and backed into a stop sign. Officer testified that client was unsteady on his feet, smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech, red glassy eyes and was unable to complete the ABCs. The officer further testified that the client was extremely belligerent both at the scene and during booking at the station. Attorney Gaudreau introduced the booking video to show that the client was not unsteady on his feet and had no difficulty walking around the booking area. She was also able to show that it was unclear how the accident occurred. The jury ultimately returned a not guilty verdict on both the operating under the influence of alcohol charge and the negligent operation charge.

Client was pulled over by a West Bridgewater police officer after the officer observed the client crossing the center and fog line. Officer testified that client didn’t immediately react to the police lights and continued down the road before stopping. Officer further testified that when he spoke with the client he observed him to have bloodshot glassy eyes, slurred speech, and that he smelled of alcohol. The client admitted to the officer that he had three drinks. The officer testified that the client was unable to recite the alphabet, was unable to count backwards in correct order, and that he failed the two physical tests asked of him. The officer also testified that the client was sick during booking and that he was uncooperative at times. At trial, Attorney Gaudreau was able to cross examine the officer and show that the marked lanes violations could have been caused by pot holes in the road, and that when the officer did activate his lights the client was able to safely drive without crossing the lines. Additionally, she was able to point out the many things the client did well on the field sobriety tests especially in light of the fact that it was very cold that evening and that he was very nervous. Attorney Gaudreau also called the client to the stand so he could explain that he had had a very long day and that he was tired, nervous, and frustrated throughout the incident, but that he was not impaired by alcohol. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty.