Binns v. Board of Bar Overseers
| Decision Date | 15 March 1976 |
| Citation | 369 Mass. 975,343 N.E.2d 868 |
| Parties | Joseph M. BINNS v. BOARD OF BAR OVERSEERS et al. 1 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Joseph M. Binns pro se.
Mark A. Michelson, Boston, for Paul W. Allison, submitted a brief.
Robert J. DeGiacomo, Bar Counsel, and Daniel Klubock, Asst. Bar Counsel, Boston, for The Bd. of Bar Overseers, submitted a brief.
Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and REARDON, QUIRICO, BRAUCHER and WILKINS, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
This is an appeal from an order of a single justice of this court allowing the defendants' motions to dismiss a bill of complaint filed by the plaintiff in the county court. The bill of complaint was essentially intended to be an appeal from a decision of the Board of Bar Overseers (the board) dismissing a complaint filed by the plaintiff against a certain attorney. On April 9, 1975, the plaintiff filed his complaint with the board against the attorney alleging essentially that the attorney had conspired with his client (who was the plaintiff's landlord) and a constable to serve process on the plaintiff improperly, which ultimately resulted in the unlawful eviction of the plaintiff, and the damages attendant thereon. The service is alleged to have beem improper in that it was made by a Boston constable in the town of Brookline, and no return or proof of service was filed in court. On August 14, 1975, the board dismissed the plaintiff's complaint. Thereafter the plaintiff filed a bill of complaint in the county court as 'an appeal' from the decision of the board. Subsequently, after hearing, the single justice allowed motions to dismiss filed by the board and the defendant attorney. There was no error. The board was established by this court in S.J.C. Rule 4:01, --- Mass. --- (1974), acting in accordance with its power to supervise the conduct of attorneys, and the board exists as the disciplinary arm of this court. Nowhere in the rule has provision been made for an appeal by a complainant from any decision of the board. A citizen filing a complaint with the board is not a party to any action taken against the attorney, nor are the citizen's rights jeopardized. As in the case of a criminal prosecution, the complainant may be a witness, but he may not appeal or participate as a party to the litigation. See WHITLEY V. COMMONWEALTH, --- MASS. ---, 339 N.E.2D 890 (1975)A. We add that, even if the right to appeal existed, the action of the single justice would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Board of Bar Overseers of Mass.
...the conduct of attorneys, and the board exists as the disciplinary arm of [the Supreme Judicial Court]." Binns v. Bd. of Bar Overseers, 369 Mass. 975, 976, 343 N.E.2d 868 (1976). Among its many powers and duties, the Board of Bar Overseers may consider and investigate the conduct of lawyer ......
-
Go–Best Assets Ltd. v. Citizens Bank of Mass.
...through its disciplinary process, not by the beneficiaries of trust funds through a new remedy in tort. See Binns v. Board of Bar Overseers, 369 Mass. 975, 976, 343 N.E.2d 868 (1976) (“The board was established by this court ... acting in accordance with its power to supervise the conduct o......
-
Cariglia v. Bar Counsel
...See G. L. c. 30A, § 1 (definition of "agency" specifically excludes "the legislative and judicial departments"); Binns v. Board of Bar Overseers, 369 Mass. 975, 976 (1976) ("The board was established by this court [and] exists as the disciplinary arm of this court"). However, given the mult......
-
Cariglia v. Bar Counsel, SJC-08980 (MA 8/13/2004)
...Cowin, Sosman, & Cordy, JJ. Supreme Judicial Court, Appeal from order of single justice. Constitutional Law, Separation of powers. Board of Bar Overseers. Administrative Law, Adjudicatory proceeding, Exhaustion of remedies. Practice, Civil, Motion to dismiss. Attorney at Law, Disciplinary C......
-
Attorney Fee Disgorgement as a Disciplinary Action
...against the attorney, nor are the citizen's rights jeopardized." Id. at 822, 370 N.E.2d at 1007 (quoting Binns v. Board of Bar Overseers, 369 Mass. 975, 976, 343 N.E.2d 868, 869 27. Wash. R.L.D. 2.1. 28. Wash. R.L.D. 2.4(d)(1). 29. See generally supra note 18 for a discussion of how the dis......