QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Disciplinary
actions are
“adversary proceedings of a
quasi-criminal nature.” In re
Ruffalo, 390 U.S.
544, 551
(1968). In some State
jurisdictions, disciplinary actions
are neither civil nor criminal but sui generis. In
some
States, such actions are judicial in nature, and in other
States,
they are administrative in
nature. Massachu-
setts
is one of the latter States. In the action
against
Petitioner, her Fourteenth Amendment rights to due
process and
equal
protection were denied; e.g.. lacking
was sufficient notice,
prosecution witnesses, opportunity
to be heard, a public trial,
compliance with
well-
established rules of practice and procedure and of
evidence, and a
fair
and impartial tribunal. The genesis
of
the disciplinary action arose out of Petitioner’s
exercise, during her
gubernatorial campaign in 2002 and
on her website, of her First
Amendment right
to free,
political speech, which the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial
Court
[“SJC”] found was prejudicial to the
administration of justice and thus
violative of Mass.R.
Prof.C. 8.4(d). The
question presented is:
1. Whether
lawyers may be stripped of both
their First Amendment rights and the
full sweep
of
their Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and
equal
protection.
The
Massachusetts SJC created the Board of
Bar
Overseers [“BBO”] and the Office of Bar Counsel
[“OBC”] as independent administrative bodies to act in
unison as the SJC’s disciplinary arm. Given that the
BBO and OBC lack an
enabling statute and bylaws,
the SJC identifies
them as “affiliated entities.” The
SJC
also
appoints both the BBO General Counsel and
the OBC Bar Counsel, and
although attorneys’
annual
licensing fees finance the BBO and OBC, the SJC
retains the
control and
supervision of the Siamese
entities. When
a final determination of a disciplinary
action is contested, the BBO
files a recommendation
of discipline in the single-justice session of the SJC.
In the instant case, the single justice adopted
the
BBO’s recommendation. The full panel
of the SJC
affirmed the judgment of disbarment by the single
justice. The questions presented are:
2. Whether, by
adjudicating an action
brought by their agents and in which one agent is
a named party, the
SJC has a
conflict of interest
that makes such a scheme for the discipline of
attorneys
unconstitutional.
3. Whether the BBO
and OBC are
unconstitutional entities.
The
single justice disbarred and ordered Petitioner
to withdraw, prior to
her
appeal, from her then-
existing cases. Arguing
that compliance with the
order would deprive her
clients of their right to
have counsel of their choice, interfere with
the
orderly
prosecution of their cases, cause her
clients harm and damage, and
interfere
with her
obligation to them, Petitioner did not comply and
was held in
contempt. The question presented is:
4. Whether
Petitioner’s noncompliance
was justified.
PARTIES TO
THE PROCEEDINGS
The
parties to the proceedings in the
Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court were
petitioner Barbara C. Johnson and
respondents
Board
of Bar Overseers of Massachusetts and/or
the Office of Bar Counsel of
Massachusetts.
Johnson uses the expression
“and/or,” for there
is a legal conundrum as to whether the entities are
separate entities
or
whether one is subservient to
the other. That is, on the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court
website, they are described
as
“affiliated entities.” Yet, in an SJC
opinion re some
other matter, the Office of Bar Counsel was deemed
to
be a
subordinate of the Board of Bar Overseers.
There is
no enabling statute to clarify the issue.
The Board
of Bar Overseers and the Office of
Bar Counsel also have no bylaws.
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Page
QUESTIONS
PRESENTED……………………...
i
PARTIES TO
THE PROCEEDINGS..………….
ii
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
..................................
iii
TABLE OF
AUTHORITIES ………...................
v
CONSTITUTIONS...........................................
viii
STATUTES
………………..……………………….
viii
RULES
………………..……………………….…...
ix
MISCELLANEOUS
……..…………………….....
ix
APPENDICES..................................................
x
PETITION
FOR
WRIT OF CERTIORARI
OPINIONS
BELOW………………………………..
1
JURISDICTION……………………………………..
1
CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS INVOLVED....
3
U.S.
Constitution
………………………………..
3
Constitution
of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts
………….............................
4
.
STATUTES
INVOLVED........................................
4
Federal
Statutes …………..............................
Massachusetts Statutes …………………….....
5
RULES
INVOLVED
..............................................
5
Former Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial
Court Rule 3:07.
Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct
. 6
Supreme
Judicial
Court Rule 3:07.
Massachusetts Rules of
Professional Conduct .. 6
Supreme
Judicial Court Rule 4:01.
Bar
Discipline ..................................................... 8
Board of
Bar Overseers Rules ..............................
8
SINGLE
JUSTICE PRACTICE
AND PROCEDURE
... 9
STATEMENT
OF THE CASE…………………………....
9
I.
Nature
of the
Case: The Underlying
Attorney
Disciplinary Proceeding …………………
9
How
the Federal Question Was Presented ….......
10
How
the BBO Avoided “Spelling Out” the
Federal Question …….......................................... 11
II.
Proceedings
in the Massachusetts
Board of Bar
Overseers ………................................................
12
Motions to
Dismiss
……………………….……........
13
OBC’s
Motion for
Protection Order and
Impoundment …………......................................…
13
Motions to
Preclude ..…………………….…….......... 14
Mitigation
……………………….……………….……… 15
The Day of
“Trial”
..…………………….……….……...
15
III.
Proceedings
in the Massachusetts
Supreme
Judicial Court
for Suffolk
County
..…………………. 17
IV. Proceeding
in the Massachusetts
Supreme
Judicial
Court for the
Commonwealth
……,……….. 18
REASONS
FOR GRANTING
THE WRIT…….…..………. 18
I. Review is
warranted because attorney disciplinary
proceedings that are
administrative in
nature
conflict with such actions that are quasi-criminal
or judicial
in nature,
depriving attorneys in those
States where such actions are
administrative in
nature of their Fourteenth Amendment rights
to due
process and equal protection ………………… 19
II. Review is
warranted because attorney disciplinary
proceedings that are
administrative in
nature
contravene the due process or equal
protection
clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and thereby
deprive
attorneys of their secured
constitutional
rights
…………………………………………............... 27
III. Review is warranted where the BBO’s
findings
were transparently invalid, the SJC single justice
adopted them,
causing the
judgment of disbarment
to be void, and the
subsequent affirmance by the
SJC full panel of that void judgment
imparted to
it
no validity, making Petitioner’s disbarment
unconstitutional...……….………………………………. 30
CONCLUSION
………..……………..…………................... 32
TABLE OF
AUTHORITIES
Adohr Milk
Farm, Inc. v.
Love,
255
Cal.App.2d 366 (1967) .............................................
32
<>
Bridges
v. California,
314 U.S.
252, 62 S.Ct. 190 (1941) .. 28
Butler v. Eaton, 141 U.S.
(Mass.)
240 (1891) …………..…
32
Butz v.
Economou, 438 U.S.
478 (1978) …………..……… 25
Cohen v. Hurley, 366 U.S.
117 (1961) …………..…………..
30
Connick
v. Myers,
461 U.S.
138 (1983) ……..…………..… 28
Drake
v. State
488 S.W.2d 534
(Tex.Civ.App.
Dallas 1972, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ……..…… 22-23
FCC
v. League of Women Voters of California,
468
U.S.
364, 104 S.Ct. 3106, 82 L.Ed.2d 278 (1984) ……
28
Garrison
v. Louisiana,
379 U.S.
64 (1964) ……..………… 28
Gentile
v. State Bar of Nevada,
501 U.S.
1030 (1991) ..… 28
Giddens
v. State Bar,
28 Cal.3d 730, 621 P.2d
851 (1981)... 21
Goldstein
v. Commission on Practice of Supreme Court,
297
Mont.
493, 995 P.2d 923
(2000) ..………………..… 24, 27
Grievance
Adm'r v. Fieger, 476 Mich.
231,
719 N.W.2d 123 (2006) …............................................. 18,
28
Hannah v.
Larche, 363 U.S.
420 (1960) ..……………..... 25
In re Curry, 450 Mass.
503, 880 N.E.2d 388 (2008) ..…
22
In re
Driscoll,
447 Mass.
678, 856 N.E.2d 840 (2006)
22
In
re Meade,
103 Wash.2d 374, 693 P.2d 713
(1985) …...
27
In
re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 75
S.Ct. 623 (1955) ….. 24,
27
In
re Robson, 575 P.2d 771
(Alaska
1978) …..…………… 27
In
re
Rose,
22 Cal.4th 430, 993
P.2d 956 (Calif.
2000) …..
22
In re
Ruffalo, 390 U.S. (Ohio)
544 (1968) ….. i,
19, 24-25, 32
In re Schlesinger,
404 Pa.
584,
172 A.2d 835 (1961) ..…… 27
Kentucky
Bar Ass'n v. Shewmaker,
842
S.W.2d 520
(Ky.1992) ..........................................................................
27
Konigsberg
v. State Bar of California,
353 U.S.
252 (1957) . 28
Matter
of Budnitz,
425 Mass.
1018, 681 N.E.2d 813,
cert.
denied,
526 U.S.
1160, 119 S.Ct. 2052 (1997) …..…… 22
Matter
of Jaques,
972 F.Supp. 1070
(E.D.Tex.1997) …..… 27
Matter of
Schoepfer, 426 Mass.
183, 687 N.E.2d 391
(Dec. 3, 1997)
…….............................................................. 22
Matter
of Segal,
430 Mass.
359, 719 N.E.2d 480 (1999) … 22
Meyer v.
Grant, 486 U.S.
414 (1988) …..………………… 11
Middlesex County Ethics
Committee v.
Garden State Bar
Ass'n,
1981
WL 389660 (Petitioner’s
brief) …..…………………… 26
Middlesex County Ethics
Committee v.
Garden State Bar
Ass'n,
457 U.S.
(N.J.) 423 (1982) …..…………………………..… 19-20
NAACP
v. Claiborne Hardware Co.,
458
U.S.
886 (1982)
......................................................
28
New York
Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S.
254 (1964) .….. 29
Paul v.
Davis, 424 U.S.
(Ky.)
693
(1976) …..………………. 26
People v. Morley, 725
P.2d 510 (Colo.1986) ……..…………. 27
Peters
v.
Hobby,
349 U.S.
331 (1955) …..……..…………… 25
<>
Pioneer
Land Co. v. Maddux,
109 Cal.
633
(1895) …..……
32
Pretzer
v. Motor Vehicle Bd.,
125 S.W.3d 23 (2003) …..… 23
Randall
v. Brigham, 74 U.S.
(Mass.)
523,
7 Wall. 523 (1868)
....................................................... 25,
29
Roth v.
United States, 354 U.S.
476 (1957) ………………. 11
Saunders
v.
Shaw,
244 U.S. (La.)
317 (1917) ……………
31
Selling
v. Radford,
243 U.S.
46 (1917) ..………………….
24
Snyder v.
Com. of Mass., 291 U.S.
97 (1934) ………………….
31
State v. Turner,
217 Kan.
574, 538
P.2d 966
(1975) ……
27
Suber
v. Pennsylvania
Com'n on
Crime and Delinquency,
885
A.2d
678 (2005) ………………….……………...............
21
Sullivan
v. Gage, 145 Cal. 759, 79 P.
537
(1905) …………
32
Trial
of John Peter Zenger,
17 Howell's State Trials 675 (1735) ..................................
29
Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 US
274 (1876)
............................. 31
Wisconsin v.
Constantineau, 400 U.S. (Wis.)
433
(1971) ... 26
CONSTITUTIONS
United
States
Constitution
Fourteenth
Amendment ............ i,
iv-v, 1, 4,, 11, 19-20, 25-27
Constitution
of Commonwealth
of Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Declaration
of Rights................... 4, 20, 29, 32
Article
XII, Declaration
of Rights ........................... 4,
20, 32
STATUTES
Federal
Statutes
28
U.S.C. § 1257(a)
........................................................
3-4
Civil
Rights Act of
1957) ................................................
25
Massachusetts Statutes
M.G.L. c.
209C, §13, as amended, eff. 3/31/1998 ... 5-6. APP-4,
APP-28, APP-34,
APP-41,
APP-45, APP-50-51, APP-60,
APP-65
M.G.L. c.
233, §1 et seq. Administrative
Procedures Act .. 5, 15
M.G.L. c.
233, §8 ................. APP-4, APP-37, APP-60, APP-64
California
Statutes
California
Administrative Agency Law ............................... 21
RULES
Supreme
Judicial
Court Rules
Supreme
Judicial
Court Rule 3:07
............................... 5-6
Supreme
Judicial
Court Rule 4:01
............................... 8-9
Canon
One, DR 1-102(A)(5) and (6) ........................... 5-6, 11
Canon
Six, DR 6-101 (A)(l) and (2) ................................
6
Massachusetts
Rules
of Professional Conduct
Mass.R.Prof.C.
1.6(a) ...................................................
6-7
APP-2,
APP-30, APP-54
Mass.R.Prof.C.
1.9(c)(1) ............................ 6. APP-2,
APP-30,
APP-42, APP-54
Mass.R.Prof.C.
1.9(c)(2) ............................. 6, APP-2,
APP-30,
APP-42, APP-54
Mass.R.Prof
C. 1.15(a)
....., 7, APP-2,
APP-30, APP-42, APP-54
Mass.R.Prof
C. 1.15(b)
.................. 7, APP-2,
APP-30, APP-35,
APP-42, APP-54
Mass.R.Prof
C. 1.15(c)
..... 7, APP-2,
APP-30, APP-42, APP-54
Mass.R.Prof.C.
1.16 (d) .............. 7, APP-2,
APP-30, APP-54
Mass.R.Prof.C.
3.4(c)
................. 7, 
#183, Drano Series