In the Matter of Chalupowski , 473 Mass. 1008 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal
    revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound
    volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical
    error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of
    Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1
    Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
    1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us
    SJC-11548
    IN THE MATTER OF MALGORZATA CHALUPOWSKI.
    December 1, 2015.
    Attorney at Law, Admission to practice, Bar application.
    Supreme Judicial Court, Membership in the bar. Practice,
    Civil, Membership in the bar.
    On May 16, 2008, Malgorzata Chalupowski applied for
    admission to the Massachusetts bar. She took and passed the
    written bar examination in July, 2008. After reviewing the
    disclosures included in her application, the Board of Bar
    Examiners (board) requested a meeting to address certain areas
    of concern. Chalupowski attended an informal meeting with the
    board in November, 2008, after which the board notified her that
    it was going to conduct a hearing to determine whether she "is
    of good moral character and sufficient acquirements and
    qualifications" for admission to the bar. G. L. c. 221, § 37.
    See S.J.C. Rule 3:01, § 5.1, as appearing in 
    411 Mass. 1321
    (1992). The board then appointed a special counsel to conduct
    an investigation prior to the hearing, which included, among
    other things, meeting with Chalupowski, interviewing various
    individuals regarding Chalupowski's character and fitness to
    practice law, and reviewing numerous documents and other
    materials.
    The special counsel submitted a report to the board in
    August, 2009, and a formal hearing was held in May, 2010. In
    January, 2011, the board issued its report of nonqualification,
    concluding that Chalupowski was "lacking in the requisite good
    moral character, acquirements and qualifications to warrant
    admission to the bar," and directing that her application be
    dismissed unless, within sixty days, she sought relief from this
    court and a hearing was ordered. See S.J.C. Rule 3:01, § 5.3,
    as appearing in 
    411 Mass. 1321
    (1992). Chalupowski timely
    appealed to a single justice of this court who, after a hearing,
    2
    ordered that her application for admission to the bar be
    dismissed.
    Chalupowski now appeals from the single justice's decision.
    We agree with the board, and the single justice, that her
    application for admission to the bar should be dismissed.
    1. Background. The board's decision includes thorough and
    extensive findings of fact and a well-reasoned discussion of why
    Chalupowski is not qualified to be admitted to the bar. The
    single justice, in turn, also issued a detailed and well-
    reasoned decision. We summarize here only some of the facts
    detailed by the board, focusing, in particular, on those facts
    relevant to the board's two main concerns -- Chalupowski's lack
    of candor with the board and with the courts, and Chalupowski's
    inability to conduct herself with respect for and in accordance
    with the law.
    a. Lack of candor. In her application for admission to
    the bar, Chalupowski disclosed her involvement in protracted
    litigation concerning her husband's family as well as several
    actions in which she and her husband raised claims of fraud,
    conversion, and malpractice against attorneys involved in the
    family litigation. She failed, however, to disclose her
    involvement in numerous other lawsuits or court proceedings,
    including the existence of restraining orders obtained by her
    sister-in-law against her; several lawsuits involving her
    condominium association, three of which involved her and her
    husband's failure to pay association fees; and several landlord-
    tenant disputes. She also failed to disclose that she had filed
    a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against
    Discrimination as well as a subsequent related complaint in the
    Federal District Court, and made certain misrepresentations
    regarding her employment history.
    Before the board, Chalupowski claimed that the omissions
    from her application were "inadvertent." The board, however,
    discounted this argument, finding it "difficult to believe that
    [she] did not understand fully the import of the disclosures, or
    lack thereof," and concluding that "the sheer number of non-
    disclosures suggest an overall intent to obfuscate and deceive
    with respect to [her] personal litigation and dispute history."
    b. Lack of respect for the legal system. As noted,
    Chalupowski, along with her husband, initiated several lawsuits
    against lawyers, judges, and court-appointed individuals
    stemming from the litigation involving her husband's family.
    3
    Chalupowski, in short, views herself as a victim -- she claims
    that the lawyers and court personnel conspired to create a "fee-
    generation" scheme using "dupe" litigants -- and her response to
    court decisions adverse to her and her husband is to blame the
    lawyers and other court personnel by claiming that they were
    engaged in fraudulent activity. Chalupowski and her husband did
    not prevail on any of the claims raised in these lawsuits.
    Rather, they were sanctioned in connection with their actions on
    more than one occasion, the lawsuits having been deemed
    frivolous, including an order from the Probate and Family Court
    enjoining them from initiating certain litigation.
    Additionally, at the hearing before the board, Chalupowski
    chose to call as witnesses four attorneys who had been involved
    in the litigation involving her husband's family and who had
    been the targets of the ensuing frivolous litigation commenced
    by Chalupowski and her husband. All four of the witnesses spoke
    negatively about Chalupowksi, and all four of them recommended
    against admitting her to the bar. In a post-hearing submission
    to the board, Chalupowski argued that the witnesses were
    "adverse" to her and that their statements regarding her
    character and fitness should be struck from the record. In
    calling these witnesses Chalupowski appeared to be using the
    board hearing as yet another opportunity to air her complaints
    against them. As the board noted, Chalupowski's choice to call
    these four attorneys as witnesses "underscore[s] a lack of
    judgment on her part . . . and suggest[s] at best, a propensity
    to misunderstand legal process, and at worst, to engage in its
    misuse."
    2. Discussion. Although we give deference to the decision
    of the board, "this court retains ultimate authority to decide a
    person's fitness to practice law in the Commonwealth." Strigler
    v. Board of Bar Examiners, 
    448 Mass. 1027
    , 1029 (2007), quoting
    Matter of Prager, 
    442 Mass. 86
    , 91 (1996). "Any significant
    doubts about an applicant's character should be resolved in
    favor of protecting the public by denying admission to the
    applicant." Matter of an Application for Admission to the Bar,
    
    444 Mass. 393
    , 397 (2005), quoting Matter of Prager, supra at
    100.
    Like the board, we have "significant doubts" about
    Chalupowski's character and fitness to practice law. Among
    other things, her lack of candor raises questions about her
    character. "Candor with the board is essential." Strigler v.
    Board of Bar 
    Examiners, supra
    . As noted above, and considered
    in extensive detail by the board, Chalupowski was not candid in
    4
    her application for admission to the bar. Although she
    disclosed some information regarding lawsuits and court
    proceedings in which she was involved, the disclosure was far
    from complete. Furthermore, in her brief to this court
    Chalupowski has made no attempt to address or explain this
    failure. Instead, she continues to focus on perceived
    wrongdoings in the litigation involving her husband's family,
    the substantive merits of which have no bearing on her
    application or admission to the bar. Indeed, this very focus on
    that litigation -- litigation that has led to sanctions against
    her -- is, in turn, an example of Chalupowski's lack of respect
    for the legal system, which is also of concern. Chalupowski
    appears unable to exercise restraint and to accept certain
    decisions as final, instead continuing to seek recourse by
    raising frivolous claims against attorneys and court personnel
    in response to adverse judgments. Engaging in this type of
    litigation is not an indication of good judgment or
    professionalism. See Matter of an Application for Admission to
    the Bar, supra at 398 (counsel must "show restraint, self-
    discipline, and a sense of reality" [citation omitted]).
    "Attorneys must conduct themselves in such a way that they
    dedicate themselves to the peaceful settlement of disputes and
    respect the role of courts in the administration of justice."
    
    Id. Chalupowski has
    not demonstrated an ability to conduct
    herself so.1
    A judgment shall enter in the county court affirming the
    determination of the board and denying Chalupowksi's application
    for admission to the bar.
    So ordered.
    Malgorzata Chalupowski, pro se.
    Matthew C. Welnicki for Board of Bar Examiners.
    1
    On the eve of her oral argument before this court,
    Chalupowski filed a "Motion to Strike the Board of Bar
    Examiners' Opposition, Motion to Disqualify, and Motion for
    Sanctions," claiming that counsel for the board has "repeatedly
    provid[ed] false and misleading information to this Court." We
    have carefully reviewed her claim and find it groundless. The
    motion is denied.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: SJC 11548

Citation Numbers: 473 Mass. 1008

Filed Date: 12/1/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023