Court Opinion

ID: 2963993
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:18:41.666396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:49.158278
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          March 29, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1632

                                  SCOTT W. HOLLAND,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                          DWYER, COLLORA & GERTNER, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby,* U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                            Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________

                                 ____________________

            Scott W. Holland on brief pro se.
            ________________
            David J. Hatem, Lynn A. LaBanca and Burns  & Levinson on brief for
            ______________  _______________     _________________
        appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                                      
        ______________________________
        *Of the District of Maine, sitting by designation.

                 Per Curiam.   We  affirm the judgment  substantially for
                 __________

            the reasons recited  by the  district court  in its  decision

            dated  May 1, 1995,  adding only the  following.  Plaintiff's

            guilt with respect  to his underlying drug  conviction is not

            in doubt.   Accordingly, a prerequisite  to any recovery  for

            legal  malpractice  is  proof that  counsel  committed "clear

            negligence  whose  causal  connection to  the  conviction  is

            clear," Glenn v.  Aiken, 409 Mass. 699, 705 (1991)--not proof
                    _____     _____

            of  negligence  having  a  "casual"  connection  thereto,  as

            plaintiff  suggests.    The  tactical decision  to  move  for

            dismissal prior  to trial,  as the district  court explained,

            fails to satisfy this standard.  In turn, the contention that

            defendants were  obligated to  prepare for and/or  to conduct

            the trial  is belied by plaintiff's  insistence on proceeding

            pro se--to  the point  of spurning  all offers  of assistance

            from standby  counsel during the  trial itself.   See,  e.g.,
                                                              ___   ____

            United  States v. Nivica, 887 F.2d 1110, 1121 (1st Cir. 1989)
            ______________    ______

            (right  to  counsel  and  right  to  self-representation  are

            "mutually exclusive").   Plaintiff's argument that  the Glenn
                                                                    _____

            standard  is  inapplicable to  pretrial  proceedings likewise

            proves unavailing.  See, e.g., Peeler v. Luce, 909 S.W.2d 494
                                ___  ____  ______    ____

            (Tex. 1995). 

                 Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ____________________________

                                         -2-