In re Simkin, SJC–11750.
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Citation | 471 Mass. 1013,28 N.E.3d 1171 (Mem) |
| Decision Date | 29 April 2015 |
| Parties | In the matter of Jay Edward SIMKIN. |
| Docket Number | SJC–11750. |
471 Mass. 1013
28 N.E.3d 1171 (Mem)
In the matter of Jay Edward SIMKIN.
SJC–11750.
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
April 29, 2015.
Jay Edward Simkin, pro se.
Opinion
RESCRIPT.
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.” Simkin 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, 867 N.E.2d 323 (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, 957 N.E.2d 222 (2011).
Judgment affirmed.
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.
--------
Notes:
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Newmexico v. Commonwealth, SJC-12152
...against interlocutory appeal for a petition for relief from the denial of a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. See Forlizzi, 471 Mass. at 1013, 28 N.E.3d 1166. "In that circumstance, because the double jeopardy right is a right not to be tried, we have held that ‘appellate review......
-
Newmexico v. Commonwealth, SJC-12152
...against interlocutory appeal for a petition for relief from the denial of a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. See Forlizzi, 471 Mass. at 1013. "In that circumstance, because the double jeopardy right is a right not to be tried, we have held that 'appellate review of [the denial ......
-
Starks v. Commonwealth, SJC–11735.
...of the General Laws that authorized gender distinctions in sentencing, as well as repealing indeterminate sentences and reformatory 28 N.E.3d 1171 sentences.” Id. at 739 n. 1, 871 N.E.2d 1066.We must construe G.L. c. 278, § 28A, in light of the sentencing reform amendments enacted in 1993, ......
-
Newmexico v. Commonwealth, SJC-12152
...against interlocutory appeal for a petition for relief from the denial of a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. See Forlizzi, 471 Mass. at 1013, 28 N.E.3d 1166. "In that circumstance, because the double jeopardy right is a right not to be tried, we have held that ‘appellate review......
-
Newmexico v. Commonwealth, SJC-12152
...against interlocutory appeal for a petition for relief from the denial of a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. See Forlizzi, 471 Mass. at 1013. "In that circumstance, because the double jeopardy right is a right not to be tried, we have held that 'appellate review of [the denial ......
-
Starks v. Commonwealth, SJC–11735.
...of the General Laws that authorized gender distinctions in sentencing, as well as repealing indeterminate sentences and reformatory 28 N.E.3d 1171 sentences.” Id. at 739 n. 1, 871 N.E.2d 1066.We must construe G.L. c. 278, § 28A, in light of the sentencing reform amendments enacted in 1993, ......