Posts tagged "Examiners"

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NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - April 30, 2015 at 6:15 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , ,

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 […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 10, 2013 at 9:09 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , ,