 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 
|
|
 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Bar News - February 21, 2003 Chronology of Unauthorized Practice of Law Litigation Against Kamasinski Oct. 15, 2001 - Superior Court Judge Robert Lynn disqualifies Theodore Kamasinski from representing Lisa Holmes in a divorce action against attorney Ralph Holmes. The court reasons that the "good character" exemption for lay representation "must be read in conjunction with RSA 311.7," which bars anyone from "commonly practicing law" unless he or she has been admitted to the Bar. Oct. 19, 2001 - Quoting Judge Lynn's reasoning in Holmes, Senior Superior Court Judge Douglas Gray strikes Kamasinski'sappearance in a domestic relations case. Oct. 23, 2001 - Kamasinski files a petition for declaratory judgment in Merrimack County Superior Court seeking a declaration that he is "not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law." Named as defendants are the president of the New Hampshire Bar Association and the NH attorney general, who are cited by statute as responsible for enforcement actions under RSA 311.7-a. Nov. 6, 2001 - The New Hampshire Bar Association responds to the Kamasinski filing and cross-petitions, asserting that Kamasinski is "commonly practicing law" in violation of RSA 311.7. The Bar seeks an immediate injunction to bar Kamasinski from representing others in court or otherwise "rendering, offering to render, or holding himself out as rendering any legal service or representation which violates RSA 311.7..." Extensive interrogatories are mailed to Kamasinski. Jan. 3, 2002 - The Attorney General's Office files its answer and cross-petition, seeking the same relief as the Bar. Jan. 14, 2002 - A hearing is held on the respondents' request for a temporary injunction. As evidence, the respondents cite Kamasinski's continuing involvement in the Hay case, despite Judge Gray's order striking Kamasinski's representation. (See Feb. 8, 2002 Bar News under Archives in the Publications section for an article on the hearing.) Feb. 22, 2002 - Court rejects Bar's request for temporary injunction barring Kamasinski from entering appearances or representing others. March 8, 2002 - At a structuring conference, the court orders petitioner Kamasinski to file either answers or formal objections to the interrogatories by March 22, 2002. March 22, 2002 - Respondent NH Bar Association files a motion to compel discovery. Among the allegations it makes is that Kamasinski, seeking permission to represent Caroline Douglas in her divorce matter, never complied with Rule 33 (2) to supply an affidavit of information about the non-licensed person seeking to represent another under the RSA 311:1's "citizen of good character" exception. (See sidebar.) March 25, 2002 - Kamasinski files answers and objections to the interrogatories. With the exception of naming nine clients he has represented since July 7, 1999, most of Kamasinski's answers are unsubstantive or objections to the questions. April 9, 2002 - The court issues a motion to compel response to discovery by the petitioner. Aug. 2, 2002 - Kamasinski is ordered to answer "all interrogatories" and provide other information sought by the respondents and the subject of court orders by Aug. 23, 2002. Kamasinski appears at a scheduled deposition, but refuses to answer questions that were the subject of the discovery requests. Oct. 17, 2002 - The court orders full compliance with discovery within 14 days of the clerk's notice to the petitioner. The court warns petitioner Kamasinski that continued failure to comply with discovery orders will result in dismissal of his petition with all pleaded facts deemed confessed. The court requests that the NHBA submit a proposed decree, a list of facts to be confessed, and relief sought. The petitioner is given 10 days from clerk's notice to dispute the respondents' filings on matters of law. Nov. 15, 2002 - Since Kamasinski did not provide further discovery, the Bar's attorneys submit a proposed decree and a legal memorandum including the official publication of Kamasinski's case heard before the European Court of Human Rights. Nov. 25, 2002 - Kamasinski files motion to again extend his deadline to file objections to an entry of a decree. Nov. 27, 2002 - The court schedules an evidentiary hearing for Dec. 3-4, 2002. Dec. 2, 2002- Petitioner, citing illness, obtains an additional postponement of evidentiary hearing. The court reschedules the evidentiary hearing for Feb. 6-7, 2003. Dec. 16, 2002 - Kamasinski fails to respond to the Bar's proposed decree or to dispute any of the facts enumerated by the respondents. The NHBA notifies the court that no response to the proposed decree has been filed (the deadline was Dec. 11). Jan. 28, 2003 - The court notes that Kamasinski has failed to comply with outstanding discovery orders and has not filed any additional pleadings. The court finds than an evidentiary hearing is not necessary, and cancels the scheduled hearing. The court indicates that an order will be issued based on the existing filings. Jan. 30, 2003 - The court issues an order enjoining the petitioner from practicing law by representing others at hearings or administrative ajudicatory proceedings, by drafting legal documents, or by providing legal advice. The court finds that the petitioner is not entitled to use the "person of good character" exemption under RSA 311.1. The court also indicates it will not stay its order pending appeal or motion for reconsideration.
|
|
Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store New Hampshire Bar Association |
