Schomer v. Board of Bar Examiners (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-077-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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‑11327 JESSE DANIEL SCHOMER vs. BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS. Suffolk. January 7, 2013. ‑ May 10, 2013. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Attorney at Law, Admission to practice, Bar application. Supreme Judicial Court, Membership in the bar, Practice of law. Board of Bar Examiners. Petition filed in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on September 19, 2011. The case was reported by Botsford, J. Jesse Daniel Schomer, pro se. Geoffrey R. Bok for Board of Bar Examiners. Arnold R. Rosenfeld & Wm. Shaw McDermott, for Skanthan Vivekananda, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. SPINA, J. On September 19, 2011, Jesse Daniel Schomer filed in the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County a petition for admission on motion to the bar of the Commonwealth pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 3:01, § 6, as appearing in 457 Mass. 1303 (2010). By decision dated November 10, 2011, the Board of Bar Examiners (board) determined that he did not qualify for admission on motion because he had not been engaged in the active practice of law in a jurisdiction where he had been admitted to the bar for a minimum of five of the seven years immediately preceding the filing of his petition.[1] Schomer then sent a request for reconsideration together with supporting materials to the board, asserting that it had materially misapprehended and misapplied the governing law and relevant standards pertaining to applications for admission on motion to the Massachusetts bar. After reviewing Schomer’s request for reconsideration, the board determined that its decision would stand, and it would not review the matter any further. On February 29, 2012, the board reported to this court that Schomer did not qualify for admission on motion to the Massachusetts bar.[2] On March 26, 2012, Schomer filed in the county court an application and supporting affidavits to stay the entry of the board’s decision and for de novo review. Pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 3:01, § 5.3, as appearing in 411 Mass. 1321 (1992), the Chief Justice of this court granted the stay and referred the matter to a single justice for further proceedings. On November 27, 2012, the single justice reserved and reported the case to the full court without decision.[3] At issue is whether […]