Please judge for yourself. If you look at the correspondence and documents and connect the dots using common sense, does it look as if :

(1) The accountant's frame the family's established fiduciaries and advisors and supplant them?

"I also would like you to be at least courteous to my friends. They know you do not want them around so you may not see much of them. They are people who helped me when I was desperately in need of help and had no place to turn.  Joanne especially was helpful. When [1] Ed Prichard was going to charge me ¼ of your Dad's estate for his fee and [2] Shalloway had a mental break down when he was going to work on the estate it was Joanne who helped me by explaining what I had to do.  She did not want to be a co-trustee but I begged her and she agreed reluctantly tho she had never done it for anyone else. I still think [3] you owe her an apology and a box of candy or bouquet of flowers. Better late than never.  And I would feel ever so much better. Please. Just treat my friends like you want me to treat yours. ..."
(From Jean O'Connell's letter of September 6, 1988, to Anthony O'Connell)

(2) The family instruct the accountant's to do the final estate account [which automatically funds the Trust] and the accountants won't let the family do it, or do the accountants instruct the family to fund the trust and the family won't let the accountants do it?

(3) The accountant's lead Jean O'Connell to believe that Anthony O'Connell is responsible for the accountants withholding the final estate account, and lead Anthony O'Connell to believe that Jean O'Connell is responsible for the accountants withholding the final estate account?

(4) The accountants make it appear that their instructions to the family: "will do draft, deed convey to court, how much" is the family's intent?

(5) The accountants give the family no choice but to sign the accountant's "Deed-agreement-receipt?" which entangles both parcels of real estate?