Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Holland v. Dwyer, Collora, 95-1632 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 95-1632 Visitors: 13
Filed: Mar. 29, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Scott W. Holland on brief pro se., ________________, David J. Hatem, Lynn A. LaBanca and Burns Levinson on brief for, ______________ _______________ _________________, appellees.plaintiff suggests.fails to satisfy this standard.from standby counsel during the trial itself.
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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-






Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer