Title: In the Matter of Swanson
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-12589
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: December 12, 2019

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12589 
 
IN THE MATTER OF CARL MARTIN SWANSON. 
 
 
December 12, 2019. 
 
 
Attorney at Law, Admission to practice, Bar application. 
 
 
 
Carl Martin Swanson has filed, in the county court, a 
petition to be admitted to the practice of law in Massachusetts 
together with some, but not all, of the supporting materials 
required by S.J.C. Rule 3:01, § 1.1, as appearing in 453 Mass. 
1302 (2009).  Notably absent from his materials are current 
certificates of admission and good standing from the highest 
courts of the other States in which he has been admitted.  See 
Rule 3:01, § 1.1.7.  His application is therefore incomplete.  
He was informed that, if he wished to proceed without the 
certificates of admission and good standing, he could request a 
waiver of the § 1.1.7 requirement from this court's rules 
committee, which he did.  The committee denied that request in 
2014, and it also subsequently denied his multiple requests for 
reconsideration. 
 
 
Swanson thereafter appealed the rulings of the rules 
committee to a single justice of this court.  The single justice 
concluded that Swanson was not entitled to relief.  He also 
denied Swanson's motion for reconsideration.  Swanson now 
appeals to the full court.  Because we conclude that the 
interests of equity and justice do not require the granting of a 
waiver of S.J.C. Rule 3:01, § 1.1.7, in these circumstances, we 
affirm the single justice's order. 
 
 
Background.  Before applying for admission to the bar in 
Massachusetts, Swanson was admitted to the practice of law in 
2 
 
 
 
Michigan and Florida.  He was disbarred in Michigan, however, in 
2004, and was subsequently disbarred in Florida under Florida's 
reciprocal discipline rules.  At no time has he sought 
reinstatement in either of those jurisdictions, although he 
alleges that the basis for his disbarment in Michigan has since 
been resolved, and, therefore, that he is eligible for admission 
in Massachusetts without first being readmitted in Michigan and 
Florida. 
 
 
Discussion.  This court has the authority to establish the 
rules and standards by which individuals become licensed to 
practice law in Massachusetts.  One such rule, Rule 3:01, 
§ 1.1.7, requires that applicants for admission to our bar must 
submit certificates from the highest courts of any other States 
in which they have been admitted to practice showing that they 
are in good standing in those jurisdictions.1  The rule assists 
the Board of Bar Examiners (board) in assessing, as it must, 
"whether the candidate possesses the character and fitness to 
practice law" in Massachusetts.  Rule V.1.1 of the Rules of the 
Board of Bar Examiners (2018).  See S.J.C. Rule 3:01, § 1.4, as 
appearing in 478 Mass. 1301 (2018).2  The rule has a clear, 
direct, rational connection to establishing the applicant's 
fitness to practice law.  Matter of Tocci, 413 Mass. 542, 547-
548 (1992) ("Such standards will be upheld under the due process 
and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the 
United States Constitution so long as they have a rational 
connection with an applicant's fitness or capacity to practice 
law"). 
 
                     
 
1 Rule 3:01, § 1.1.7, of the Rules of the Supreme Judicial 
Court, as appearing in 453 Mass. 1302 (2009), requires that an 
applicant to the bar of Massachusetts submit, in addition to his 
or her petition for admission, "Current Certificate(s) of 
Admission and Good Standing from the highest judicial court in 
each state, district, territory, or foreign country to which the 
petitioner is admitted, if applicable."  Although the rule 
refers to jurisdictions in which the applicant "is admitted," 
the spirit of the rule applies as well to jurisdictions in which 
an applicant was admitted but has since been disbarred. 
 
 
2 Rule 3:01, § 1.4, of the Rules of the Supreme Judicial 
Court, as appearing in 478 Mass. 1301 (2018), was renumbered 
effective March 1, 2018.  Prior to that date, it was cited as 
S.J.C. Rule 3:01, § 1.3, as appearing in 453 Mass. 1302 (2009). 
3 
 
 
 
 
The court and its rules committee also have the inherent 
power to waive any one or more of the rules in particular 
situations when justice and equity require.  See Mitchell v. 
Board of Bar Examiners, 452 Mass. 582, 586 (2008); Matter of 
Tocci, supra at 546; Novak v. Board of Bar Examiners, 397 Mass. 
270, 274 (1986).  The rules committee determined on the basis of 
the various materials submitted by Swanson that this is not a 
suitable case for a waiver.  We agree. 
 
 
We have carefully reviewed all the material that Swanson 
submitted to the rules committee, to the single justice, and to 
the full court.  Based on what he has submitted, we are not 
persuaded that the event which led to his disbarment in Michigan 
has since been resolved, as he claims.  There is nothing in the 
record from the Michigan authorities so indicating.  Nor is 
there anything from Michigan or Florida indicating that he would 
be eligible to apply for reinstatement there or that he has 
applied for such reinstatement.  In these circumstances, we 
cannot say that the purpose of our rule would be served by 
dispensing with certificates of admission and good standing from 
Michigan and Florida. 
 
 
Swanson also claims that he was entitled to an evidentiary 
hearing before the rules committee and a written report from the 
committee setting forth its findings and reasons for not 
granting a waiver.  For this proposition he relies primarily on 
cases that involve the administrative procedure act, G. L. 
c. 30A, and proceedings before administrative agencies.  The act 
does not apply to the Judicial Branch, however.  See G. L. 
c. 30A, § 1 (judicial department expressly excluded from 
definition of "agency").  See also Wei Jia v. Board of Bar 
Examiners, 427 Mass. 777, 788 (1998), citing Mead, petitioner, 
372 Mass. 253, 255, cert. denied, 434 U.S. 858 (1977).  The 
consideration of a request for a rule waiver by the rules 
committee is an ad hoc, equitable process that typically 
consists of reviewing the written request and any supporting 
material; it does not require a trial or specific findings. 
 
 
To be clear, neither the rules committee, the single 
justice, nor this court has denied Swanson's application for 
admission to the bar.  Because he has not filed certificates of 
admission and good standing in Michigan and Florida, his 
petition is incomplete.  See S.J.C. Rule 3:01, § 1.1.  It 
therefore has not been referred to the board for a report "as to 
the character, acquirements and qualifications of the 
4 
 
 
 
petitioner."  S.J.C. Rule 3:01, § 1.4.  The requirement that 
certificates of admission and good standing be provided as part 
of a complete application is consistent with our approach in the 
context of reciprocal discipline:  "[p]ermitting an attorney 
suspended or disbarred in one State to practice law in the 
Commonwealth rightly tends to undermine public confidence in the 
effectiveness of attorney disciplinary procedures and threatens 
harm to the administration of justice and to innocent clients."  
Matter of Lebbos, 423 Mass. 753, 755 (1996), cert. denied, 520 
U.S. 1275 (1997).  When Swanson files certificates of admission 
and good standing in Florida and Michigan, and his application 
is otherwise complete, it will be referred to the board for its 
consideration. 
 
 
The order of the single justice declining to grant relief 
from the rules committee's decision not to grant a rule waiver 
in these circumstances, on the record that was before it, is 
affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered. 
 
 
The case was submitted on briefs. 
 
Carl Martin Swanson, pro se.