Britton v. Board of Bar Examiners (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-074-15)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   SJC-11703 RANDY A. BRITTON  vs.  BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS. April 30, 2015.     Board of Bar Examiners.  Attorney at Law, Admission to practice.     On May 12, 2006, Randy A. Britton applied for admission to the Massachusetts bar, and he took and passed the written bar examination in July of that year.  Based on information in his application, including his responses to questions concerning his employment history and involvement in litigation, and the pendency of his application for admission to the Connecticut bar, the Board of Bar Examiners (board) interviewed Britton and then stayed further investigation pending a final determination on the Connecticut application.  After Britton withdrew that application, the board resumed its investigation, appointed special counsel to assist in the investigation, and thereafter conducted a hearing to inquire whether Britton “is of good moral character and sufficient acquirements and qualifications” to warrant his admission to the bar.  G. L. c. 221, § 37.  See S.J.C. Rule 3:01, § 5.1, as appearing in 411 Mass. 1321 (1992).  Britton was the sole witness at the hearing.  The board determined that he was not qualified for admission and recommended that the petition be dismissed.  S.J.C. Rule 3:01, § 5.3, as appearing in 411 Mass. 1321 (1992).  Britton petitioned the county court for a hearing on his application, raising a variety of constitutional, statutory, and other challenges to the board’s decision.  After a hearing, a single justice issued a very thorough memorandum in which he carefully addressed and rejected each of Britton’s challenges.  The single justice thus denied Britton’s application and dismissed his petition.  We affirm for essentially the same reasons stated by the single justice.   1.  Facts.  In his application, Britton disclosed that he had been “wrongfully terminated” by two employers, and that he had brought multiple lawsuits involving separate incidents against former employers, attorneys, police officers, and a media outlet alleging, among other things, wrongful termination, violation of civil rights, defamation, breach of contract, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process.  In addition, he reported that his application for admission to the Connecticut bar had been pending since 2004.  The board’s investigation revealed additional involvement with the legal system and other matters, which he had failed to disclose in his application.   a.  Failures to disclose.  In support of his application, Britton submitted three letters of recommendation.  One of those letters was from an attorney […]

Read more...