Title: Schubert v. Comm. for Pub. Counsel Servs.

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12044 
 
GREG T. SCHUBERT   vs.  COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC COUNSEL SERVICES. 
 
 
August 9, 2016. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. 
 
 
 
 
The petitioner, attorney Greg T. Schubert, filed papers in 
the county court entitled "writ of mandamus" and "writ of 
certiorari" that a single justice treated as a petition pursuant 
to G. L. c. 211, § 3, and denied.  Schubert appeals, and we  
affirm. 
 
 
The matter stems from a billing dispute between Schubert 
and the respondent, the Committee for Public Counsel Services 
(CPCS).  Essentially, CPCS conducted an audit of bills that 
Schubert submitted for payment to CPCS in connection with legal 
services that he provided for an indigent defendant.  Pursuant 
to the CPCS Assigned Counsel Manual, certain administrative 
proceedings followed the audit, culminating in a hearing.  The 
hearing officer ultimately rendered a decision adverse to 
Schubert, after which Schubert filed two separate complaints in 
the Hampden County Superior Court:  one in the nature of 
certiorari (HDCV2013-00881) and one for a declaratory judgment 
(HDCV2014-00141).  CPCS filed a motion to dismiss in each 
action.  A judge denied the motion in the certiorari action 
because, at the hearing on the motion, CPCS agreed to give 
Schubert additional time to file a motion for judgment on the 
pleadings, as required by Superior Court Standing Order 1-96.  
Schubert had not filed such a motion because he did not believe 
that the standing order applied to his case.  In the declaratory 
judgment action, the judge did allow CPCS's motion to dismiss, 
on the bases that CPCS cannot be sued under G. L. c. 231A, § 2, 
2 
 
for a declaratory judgment, and that the individual defendants 
named in that action were immune from suit. 
 
 
Schubert then filed his pleadings in this court, which a 
single justice denied without a hearing.  After the single 
justice denied his request for relief, Schubert filed several 
motions to supplement his pleadings with additional documents, 
which the single justice treated as motions for reconsideration 
and denied.  Additionally, CPCS again moved to dismiss the 
certiorari action in the trial court, this time for failure to 
prosecute.  The motion was allowed. 
 
 
It is incumbent on Schubert, as the petitioner, to 
demonstrate that "review of the trial court decision[s] cannot 
adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment 
in the trial court or by other available means."  S.J.C. Rule 
2:21 (2), as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001).  He has not made 
such a showing.  In fact, he has not even addressed the point.  
In the papers that he has filed in this court, purportedly 
pursuant to rule 2:21, he raises arguments related only to the 
substantive merits of the underlying fee dispute.  Regardless, 
there is no reason why Schubert could not have adequately 
obtained review of his claims in a direct appeal from the 
dismissals of the trial court actions.  Relief under G. L. 
c. 211, § 3, is properly denied where, as here, "there are other 
routes by which the petitioning party may adequately seek 
relief."  Sabree v. Commonwealth, 432 Mass. 1003, 1003 (2000).  
Additionally, as to the certiorari action, Schubert has set 
forth no reason why he could not have sought interlocutory 
review in the Appeals Court pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, 
first par., of the judge's initial ruling that Standing Order 1-
96 applied.  See Greco v. Plymouth Sav. Bank, 423 Mass. 1019, 
1019-1020 (1996) ("Review under G. L. c. 211, § 3, does not lie 
where review under c. 231, § 118, would suffice"). 
 
 
The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in 
denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
 
Greg T. Shubert, pro se.