Case Title: In the Matter of Murray

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-13518

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2024-05-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13518 
 
IN THE MATTER OF JAMES MURRAY.1 
 
 
May 16, 2024. 
 
 
Attorney at Law, Admission to practice.  Supreme Judicial Court, 
Membership in the bar. 
 
 
 
 
The petitioner, James Murray, also known as James Hines, 
appeals from a judgment of the county court denying his 
petition, filed pursuant to our equity jurisdiction under G. L. 
c. 214, § 1, in which he sought a "provisional law license."  We 
affirm. 
 
The requirements for admission to the practice of law in 
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are set forth in G. L. c. 221, 
§ 37, and S.J.C. Rule 3:01, as appearing in 478 Mass. 1301 
(2018).2  Nothing therein authorizes a "provisional" law 
license.3  The petitioner apparently asks that he be permitted to 
bypass the requirements for admission to the practice of law and 
to have a "provisional" law license granted to him.  There 
 
 
1 Also known as James Hines. 
 
 
2 The petitioner is aware of these requirements, as he has 
previously filed an incomplete petition to take the 
Massachusetts bar examination.  See Matter of Murray, 492 Mass. 
1017 (2023). 
 
 
3 In this respect, the legal profession differs from certain 
other professions in which, by statute, new practitioners may 
obtain a provisional license.  See, e.g., G. L. c. 112, § 144B 
(speech-language pathologist); G. L. c. 112, § 214 
(perfusionist); G. L. c. 112, § 255 (genetic counselor).  
2 
 
simply is no legal basis to grant such an extraordinary request.  
The single justice properly denied the petition.4 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on briefs. 
 
James Murray, pro se. 
 
 
4 The petitioner has submitted documents that he styles as 
an "amicus publici" brief and a "pre-oral argument 
presentation," along with motions for leave to file these 
documents.  Our rules make no provision for such filings.  We 
nevertheless allow the motions for leave to file these documents 
and treat them as supplements to the petitioner's main brief.