Posts tagged "Simkin"

In the Matter of Simkin (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-071-15)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-11750   IN THE MATTER OF JAY EDWARD SIMKIN. April 29, 2015.     Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  Board of Bar Overseers.  Practice, Civil, Standing.     Jay Edward Simkin filed a petition in the county court alleging that certain attorneys had committed breaches of the rules of professional conduct in connection with proceedings involving the revocation and reinstatement of his license to carry firearms.  He requested that this court enter findings to that effect, which, he claimed, would lead to bar counsel’s reconsideration of her decision not to pursue his complaints against the attorneys.  The record indicates that the Board of Bar Overseers (board) reviewed bar counsel’s decision not to take further action.  A single justice denied Simkin’s petition without a hearing, reasoning that an “individual who files a complaint with the board lacks standing to challenge in a court action the board’s decision not to prosecute the complaint.”  Simpkin appeals.[1]   The single justice properly denied relief because, regardless of the mechanism employed, a private individual cannot prosecute a judicial action for attorney discipline.  “There simply is no such private right of action.”  Matter of a Request for an Investigation of an Attorney, 449 Mass. 1013, 1014 (2007) (complainant may not “commence a judicial action challenging bar counsel’s decision and seek a judicial order compelling bar counsel to act in a certain way”).  That is essentially what Simkin seeks to accomplish here.  He filed complaints with the board, as was his right; bar counsel investigated but declined to pursue them; and, after review, the board determined not to proceed.  Simkin has no further standing in the matter.  See id.  See also Ellis, petitioner, 460 Mass. 1020, 1021 (2011).   Judgment affirmed.     The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law. Jay Edward Simkin, pro se.   [1] Simkin filed a memorandum and appendix pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001).  That rule does not apply here because Simkin’s petition does not challenge an “interlocutory ruling in the trial court.”  Id.  It is evident from his submission and from the papers in the county court, however, that he has no standing to maintain the action. Full-text Opinions

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - April 29, 2015 at 5:12 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

Firearms Records Bureau v. Simkin, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-150-13)

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‑11295   FIREARMS RECORDS BUREAU  vs.  JAY E. SIMKIN & others.[1]   Suffolk.     April 4, 2013.  ‑  August 8, 2013. Present:  Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, & Lenk, JJ.     Firearms.  Practice, Civil, Action in the nature of certiorari, Judicial review of license to carry firearms.  License.  Statute, Construction.  Administrative Law, Regulations.  Words, “Suitable Person”.     Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on February 1, 2011.   The case was heard by Bonnie H. MacLeod, J., on motions for judgment on the pleadings.   The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.     Penny Dean for Jay E. Simkin. David R. Marks, Assistant Attorney General, for the plaintiff. Karen L. MacNutt & J. Steven Foley, for Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc., amicus curiae, submitted a brief.       CORDY, J.  Jay E. Simkin, a New Hampshire resident, held a temporary nonresident Class A unrestricted license to carry firearms in Massachusetts (license).  Following an incident that occurred on November 6, 2009, the firearms records bureau[2] (bureau) revoked Simkin’s license, deeming him no longer a “suitable person” to possess it.  A judge in the Chelsea District Court ordered that Simkin’s license be reinstated.  The bureau appealed the decision to the Superior Court, where a judge ruled in favor of the bureau and vacated the order of the District Court.  We granted Simkin’s application for direct appellate review to consider whether the “suitable person” requirement set forth in G. L. c. 140, § 131, applies to temporary nonresident licenses issued pursuant to G. L. c. 140, § 131F.  Although we conclude that it does, we also conclude that in the absence of regulations further defining unsuitability, no reasonable ground existed to revoke Simkin’s license.  Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Superior Court.[3]   1.  Background.  We summarize the relevant facts as found by the District Court judge, supplemented where necessary by undisputed facts in the record.  Simkin is a New Hampshire resident and a federally licensed firearms dealer who is engaged in the “buying and selling [of] firearms in the region, from private parties, at gun shows, and at auctions.”  Since 2002, he has held a temporary nonresident Class A unrestricted license to carry firearms in Massachusetts.  In February, 2009, Simkin applied to the bureau for a renewal of his license, stating as his purpose for requesting the renewal that he […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - August 8, 2013 at 2:59 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,