#165, Drano Series

Barb's  Motion for Declaration As To

What Constitutes The Unauthorized Practice Of Law

Judge Spina's response to this motion is below the motion.

~~~~~~~~~

NOTE that Drano ##159, 160, and 161 were sent to the

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for the Commonwealth, where the full panel (minus the judge who sat in the single-justice) will hear the case.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTE that Drano ##162, 163, 164, and 165 were sent to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, where every month a different SJC justice is assigned to sit as a  judge  in the single-justice session.
Amongst the many types of cases heard by a "Single Justice" are petitions invoking the "SUPERINTENDENCY" of the SJC and
Board Discipline cases.

~~~~~~~~~
People have written me, "What can I do to help you?"
It is unlikely anything will help the inevitable,
however, anything is worth trying. 
The "anything" might be letters to the Court:

Supreme Judicial Court
John Adams Courthouse
One Pemberton Square
Boston , MA 02108

__________________________________________
Supreme Judicial Court
Justices
(click on names and see photos and profiles)
Send letters by snail mail or email of both.
Snail mail address above.
Email addresses below.

Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall chiefjustice.marshall@sjc.state.ma.us margaret.marshall@sjc.state.ma.us
Justice John M. Greaney john.greaney@sjc.state.ma.us	Justice Roderick L. Ireland roderick.ireland@sjc.state.ma.us
Justice Francis X. Spina francis.spina@sjc.state.ma.us	Justice Judith A. Cowin judith.cowin@sjc.state.ma.us
Justice Martha B. Sosman martha.sosman@sjc.state.ma.us	Justice Robert J. Cordy robert.cordy@sjc.state.ma.us
Keep the letters going to the Court. I was there on October 6th to file my appeal.   One of the clerks said the letter file was a few inches thick. Whether the judges will ever read them is unknown, but they are sure to know that they are there.  I'll inquire as to whether a "reader" has been assigned. Let's also try emails.  The judges' secretaries will certainly let them know how many are coming in.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT

of Suffolk County 

Single-Justice Session No. BD-2006-039

IN RE BARBARA C. JOHNSON

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

JOHNSON’S MOTION FOR DECLARATION AS TO

WHAT CONSTITUTES THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW

Now comes Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., [“Johnson”] and moves for a declaration as to what constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.

As grounds, Johnson states that given the considerable evidence of the intellectual dishonesty of Assistant Bar Counsel Susan Strauss-Weisberg and her propensity to make false accusations, the absence of a declaration that is clear and unequivocal of what constitutes the unauthorized practice of law will be seriously, and likely irreversibly, prejudicial to Johnson.

For example, Weisberg alleged that an unrevised disclaimer page on Johnson’s website was evidence of Johnson holding herself out as practicing law, despite announcing her disbarment in absolutely definitive terms on her Home Page and in diverse files on her website. Given Weisberg’s limited practice area, she is obligated and presumed to be familiar with In the Matter of Darryl Chimko, 444 Mass. 743, 751-752 (2005), in which S.J.C. Justice Cordy held that using a law firm's letterhead on letters to, for instance, a debtor and a bankruptcy court did not constitute practice of law.

Giving notice to a court, which is what Johnson did . . . as ordered . . . on 11 September 2006 and of which Weisberg complained, does not constitute practice of law. “‘Chimko's preparation of the notice did not constitute the practice of law because the ‘assistance’ he provided did not relate to any specific legal problem.” Chimko, 444 Mass. at 751.

Judge Cordy further wrote,

We have rejected the proposition "that whenever, for compensation, one person ... performs for another some service that requires some knowledge of law, or drafts for another some document that has legal effect, he is practising law."

Chimko, 444 Mass. at 749-750 (emphasis supplied), quoting Lowell Bar Ass'n v. Loeb, 315 Mass. 176, 181 (1943). The Court in Lowell Bar Ass'n wrote specifically, “The drafting of documents merely incidental to work of a distinct occupation is not the ‘practice of law,’ though documents have legal consequences.” Id. at . G.L. c. 221, § 46B.

"[T]he mere general dissemination of legal information by nonlawyers does not constitute the unauthorized practice of law." Oregon State Bar v. Smith, [149 Or.App. 171], 182, 942 P.2d 793 [1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1117, 118 S.Ct. 1055, 140 L.Ed.2d 117 (1998)]. Equally significant in our view, however, is the fact that the notice was addressed to the court, and not to the debtor. Although Chimko included the notice with his initial correspondence to the debtor, seemingly as a courtesy to a party acting pro se, the notice itself made clear that its intended audience was the court. In such circumstances, we cannot conclude that Chimko furnished legal advice to the debtor and thereby engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. [citation omitted].

Chimko, 444 Mass at 751.

Given (1) that Weisberg has demonstrated that she is using the buckshot approach in accusing Johnson, (2) that “[i]t is not easy to define the practice of law” [Chimko, 444 Mass at 749, citing Lowell Bar Ass'n v. Loeb, 315 Mass. at 180] and (3) that “[t]o a large extent each case must be decided upon its own particular facts” [Matter of the Shoe Mfrs. Protective Ass'n, 295 Mass. 369, 372 (1936)], a clear and unequivocal declaration of what constitutes the unauthorized practice of law is mandatory, lest Johnson again be seriously, and likely irreversibly, prejudiced and deprived of her constitutional rights.

Wherefore, Respondent prays this motion be allowed.

                                                        Respectfully submitted,                                                              Barbara C. Johnson
 10 October 2006                            Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., Pro Se
                                                        6 Appletree Lane
Andover, MA 01810-4102
                                                        978-474-0833
                                                        BBO #549972

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Barbara C. Johnson, hereby certify that on 10/11 October 2006 I served a true and accurate copy of the within pleading to the opposing OBC counsel, 99 High Street, Boston, MA 02110 by first-class mail.

Barbara C. Johnson

 10 October 2006                       Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., Pro Se