Burnham v. Justices of the Superior Court

792 N.E.2d 987, 439 Mass. 1018, 2003 Mass. LEXIS 579
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedAugust 6, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 792 N.E.2d 987 (Burnham v. Justices of the Superior Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Burnham v. Justices of the Superior Court, 792 N.E.2d 987, 439 Mass. 1018, 2003 Mass. LEXIS 579 (Mass. 2003).

Opinion

Francis Choate Burnham appeals from an order of a single justice of this court dismissing his complaint for injunctive relief. Burnham had sought an injunction barring the Justices of the Superior Court from “inhibiting” Bum-ham, who does not claim to be an attorney, from making “arguments in behalf of his clients” — various “individuals and corporations” — in civil actions throughout the Superior Court Department of the Trial Court. On the defendants’ motion, the single justice dismissed the complaint. We affirm.

Burnham has filed a memorandum and appendix pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001). We agree that rule 2:21 applies because the single justice’s dismissal of Burnham’s complaint effectively denied Burnham relief from interlocutory orders of the trial court supposedly “inhibiting” Burnham from arguing on behalf of his “clients.” We conclude that the single justice correctly dismissed Burnham’s complaint because neither in the complaint nor in his memorandum does he assert any basis on which he, as a nonattomey, is entitled to represent anyone other than himself.1 Burnham may not represent other parties in civil actions in the Superior Court without a license to practice law. See Varney Enters., Inc. v. WMF, Inc., 402 Mass. 79, 79-82 (1988).2 See also G. L. c. 221, § 41 (establishing criminal penalties for unauthorized practice of law); G. L. c. 221, § 46A (only licensed attorney in good standing shall practice law). Therefore, he was not entitled to the injunctive relief he sought.

The order of the single justice is affirmed.

So ordered.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gary D. Lingley v. Raymond K. Hoyland.
Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2023
BURLINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT v. ROBERT M. HAGOPIAN.
100 Mass. App. Ct. 720 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2022)
Tanios v. Dep't of Transitional Assistance
104 N.E.3d 685 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2018)
Skandha v. Comm. for Pub. Counsel
94 N.E.3d 436 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
792 N.E.2d 987, 439 Mass. 1018, 2003 Mass. LEXIS 579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burnham-v-justices-of-the-superior-court-mass-2003.