New England Legal Foundation
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission & History
    • Annual Reports
    • Board of Directors
    • State Advisory Councils >
      • Connecticut
      • Maine
      • Massachusetts
      • New Hampshire
      • Rhode Island
      • Vermont
    • Trustees
    • Members
    • Staff
    • Job & Internship Opportunities
  • News & Events
  • Docket
  • Briefs
  • Donate
  • Contact

Superadio v. BabyLove and Mscisz v. KDS Securities Corp. 

6/1/2006

 
Defending A Party’s Right To Be Represented By An Out-of-State Attorney In A Massachusetts Arbitration

In these two appeals, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) requested amicus briefs on the question whether an out-of-state attorney not admitted to practice law in Massachusetts who represents an out-of-state party in a Massachusetts arbitration engages in the unauthorized practice of law. In both cases, the prevailing party in an arbitration in Massachusetts was represented by an attorney who was not admitted in the state. The losing party in each case sought to vacate the arbitral award on the ground, inter alia, that the winners’ attorneys were not authorized to practice law in Massachusetts. 


NELF filed an amicus brief in support of the out-of-state party in each case arguing that a party’s choice of counsel in an arbitration should be upheld, even if the attorney is not admitted in Massachusetts, so long as the attorney is admitted elsewhere and is otherwise competent to undertake the representation. NELF argued that this open approach to arbitration recognizes the reality of today’s fluid multi-jurisdictional economy in which many, if not most, companies and many individuals transact business in a number of different states, and where arbitrations often occur pursuant to specific arbitration provisions that the disputing parties have agreed to in advance. Where, as was the case in these appeals, a party has made an informed choice of competent counsel, respecting that party’s freedom to retain counsel of its choice in the arbitration even when counsel is not admitted in the forum state does not offend the forum state’s interest in protecting its citizens from unscrupulous or incompetent legal representation. In its brief NELF noted that this open approach to multi-jurisdictional practice in arbitration has been adopted by the ABA in its Model Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5 (2002) and that ABA Model Rule 5.5 is currently under consideration for adoption in Massachusetts. 


On March 28, 2006, the SJC issued its decision in this case. Because the adoption of Model Rule 5.5 is still under active consideration, the Court declined to decide the question on which it had sought amicus input and that NELF had briefed. Noting, however, that it did not need to reach the question in order to decide the appeal, the Court held that even if the out-of-state attorneys in these matters had been engaged in the practice of law while representing their clients in the arbitrations, it would not provide a basis for overturning the arbitrators’ decisions. With respect to an aspect of the case that had not been addressed by NELF, the SJC also held that, absent contrary language in an arbitration provision, arbitrators have the power to impose monetary sanctions for a party’s discovery violations.


Comments are closed.

    The Docket

    To obtain a copy of any of NELF's briefs, contact us at info@nelfonline.org.

    Categories

    All
    1st Circuit Court Of Appeals
    2nd Circuit Court Of Appeals
    3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals
    Business Litigation Session
    CT
    CT Superior Court
    CT Supreme Court
    Employer Employee Relationships
    February 2018
    February 2019
    Government Regulation/Administration Of Justice
    MA
    MA Appeals Court
    MA Division Of Administrative Law Appeals
    March 2015
    MA Superior Court
    MA Supreme Judicial Court
    MA US District Court
    ME
    ME Supreme Judicial Court
    NH
    NH Supreme Court
    Property Rights
    RI
    RI Supreme Court
    SCOTUS
    United States Supreme Court
    US Court Of Appeals Federal Circuit
    US District Court ME
    VT
    VT Supreme Court

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    August 2020
    June 2020
    January 2020
    June 2019
    April 2019
    October 2018
    June 2018
    February 2018
    October 2017
    October 2016
    June 2016
    February 2016
    October 2015
    June 2015
    March 2015
    October 2014
    June 2014
    February 2014
    October 2013
    June 2013
    February 2013
    October 2012
    June 2012
    February 2012
    October 2011
    June 2011
    February 2011
    October 2010
    June 2010
    February 2010
    October 2009
    February 2009
    October 2008
    June 2008
    February 2008
    October 2007
    June 2007
    October 2006
    June 2006
    February 2006
    October 2005
    June 2005
    February 2005
    October 2004
    June 2004
    February 2004
    October 2003
    May 2003
    February 2003
    September 2002
    May 2002
    February 2002
    May 2001