Case Title: In re Simkin

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-11750

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2015-04-29T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-11750 
 
IN THE MATTER OF JAY EDWARD SIMKIN. 
 
 
 
April 29, 2015. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Board of Bar Overseers.  Practice, Civil, Standing. 
 
 
 
Jay Edward Simkin filed a petition in the county court 
alleging that certain attorneys had committed breaches of the 
rules of professional conduct in connection with proceedings 
involving the revocation and reinstatement of his license to 
carry firearms.  He requested that this court enter findings to 
that effect, which, he claimed, would lead to bar counsel's 
reconsideration of her decision not to pursue his complaints 
against the attorneys.  The record indicates that the Board of 
Bar Overseers (board) reviewed bar counsel's decision not to 
take further action.  A single justice denied Simkin's petition 
without a hearing, reasoning that an "individual who files a 
complaint with the board lacks standing to challenge in a court 
action the board's decision not to prosecute the complaint."  
Simpkin appeals.1 
 
 
The single justice properly denied relief because, 
regardless of the mechanism employed, a private individual 
cannot prosecute a judicial action for attorney discipline.  
"There simply is no such private right of action."  Matter of a 
Request for an Investigation of an Attorney, 449 Mass. 1013, 
                     
1 Simkin filed a memorandum and appendix pursuant to S.J.C. 
Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001).  That rule does 
not apply here because Simkin's petition does not challenge an 
"interlocutory ruling in the trial court."  Id.  It is evident 
from his submission and from the papers in the county court, 
however, that he has no standing to maintain the action. 
2 
 
 
 
1014 (2007) (complainant may not "commence a judicial action 
challenging bar counsel's decision and seek a judicial order 
compelling bar counsel to act in a certain way").  That is 
essentially what Simkin seeks to accomplish here.  He filed 
complaints with the board, as was his right; bar counsel 
investigated but declined to pursue them; and, after review, the 
board determined not to proceed.  Simkin has no further standing 
in the matter.  See id.  See also Ellis, petitioner, 460 Mass. 
1020, 1021 (2011). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Jay Edward Simkin, pro se.