Facts- Petitioner,
Valentina Gorbatova , as the guardian of her husband, filed a petition seeking
disciplinary action against attorney.
Semuels, acting in his capacity as hearing officer for the Executive
Office of Elder Affairs, had conducted an administrative hearing and issued a
final decision reducing home care services to petitioner’s husband. The petitioner sought disciplinary action
against Semuels for his conduct during the administrative hearing, claiming
that in the course of acting as the hearing officer he had violated numerous
provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Treating the petition as one, a single justice
of the Supreme Judicial Court determined the petitioner did not have a private
right of action and did not establish that she was entitled extraordinary
relief under the statute and dismissed the petition. Petitioner then appealed.
Issue: Does
a petitioner have a private right of action for prosecuting a complaint against
an attorney?
Holding- No. Judgment Affirmed. Because
the petitioner did not have a private right of action, the single justice did
not err in dismissing the petition because it is the Board of Bar Oversees and
not private individuals who are ordinarily responsible for prosecuting
complaints against attorneys and thus the petitioner’s recourse in these
circumstances is to file a complaint with the Board of Bar Overseers. “No
matter how the petition was framed or how it was treated by the single justice,
the critical point is that the petitioner, as a private individual, sought to
invoke this court’s power of general superindence of the bar by commencing a
court action…There simply is no such private right of action.” A citizen filing a complaint 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. (JB)
