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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-