Title: In the Matter of Chalupowski

State: massachusetts

Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-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.