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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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 wellreasoned 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 landlordtenant 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 nondisclosures 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 "feegeneration" 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, selfdiscipline, 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.