In the Matter of Chalupowski

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal

revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound

volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical

error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of

Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1

Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-

1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

SJC-11548

IN THE MATTER OF MALGORZATA CHALUPOWSKI.

December 1, 2015.

Attorney at Law, Admission to practice, Bar application.

Supreme Judicial Court, Membership in the bar. Practice,

Civil, Membership in the bar.

On May 16, 2008, Malgorzata Chalupowski applied for

admission to the Massachusetts bar. She took and passed the

written bar examination in July, 2008. After reviewing the

disclosures included in her application, the Board of Bar

Examiners (board) requested a meeting to address certain areas

of concern. Chalupowski attended an informal meeting with the

board in November, 2008, after which the board notified her that

it was going to conduct a hearing to determine whether she "is

of good moral character and sufficient acquirements and

qualifications" for admission to the bar. G. L. c. 221, § 37.

See S.J.C. Rule 3:01, § 5.1, as appearing in 411 Mass. 1321

(1992). The board then appointed a special counsel to conduct

an investigation prior to the hearing, which included, among

other things, meeting with Chalupowski, interviewing various

individuals regarding Chalupowski's character and fitness to

practice law, and reviewing numerous documents and other

materials.

The special counsel submitted a report to the board in

August, 2009, and a formal hearing was held in May, 2010. In

January, 2011, the board issued its report of nonqualification,

concluding that Chalupowski was "lacking in the requisite good

moral character, acquirements and qualifications to warrant

admission to the bar," and directing that her application be

dismissed unless, within sixty days, she sought relief from this

court and a hearing was ordered. See S.J.C. Rule 3:01, § 5.3,

as appearing in 411 Mass. 1321 (1992). Chalupowski timely

appealed to a single justice of this court who, after a hearing,

2

ordered that her application for admission to the bar be

dismissed.

Chalupowski now appeals from the single justice's decision.

We agree with the board, and the single justice, that her

application for admission to the bar should be dismissed.

1. Background. The board's decision includes thorough and

extensive findings of fact and a well-reasoned discussion of why

Chalupowski is not qualified to be admitted to the bar. The

single justice, in turn, also issued a detailed and well-

reasoned decision. We summarize here only some of the facts

detailed by the board, focusing, in particular, on those facts

relevant to the board's two main concerns -- Chalupowski's lack

of candor with the board and with the courts, and Chalupowski's

inability to conduct herself with respect for and in accordance

with the law.

a. Lack of candor. In her application for admission to

the bar, Chalupowski disclosed her involvement in protracted

litigation concerning her husband's family as well as several

actions in which she and her husband raised claims of fraud,

conversion, and malpractice against attorneys involved in the

family litigation. She failed, however, to disclose her

involvement in numerous other lawsuits or court proceedings,

including the existence of restraining orders obtained by her

sister-in-law against her; several lawsuits involving her

condominium association, three of which involved her and her

husband's failure to pay association fees; and several landlord-

tenant disputes. She also failed to disclose that she had filed

a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against

Discrimination as well as a subsequent related complaint in the

Federal District Court, and made certain misrepresentations

regarding her employment history.

Before the board, Chalupowski claimed that the omissions

from her application were "inadvertent." The board, however,

discounted this argument, finding it "difficult to believe that

[she] did not understand fully the import of the disclosures, or

lack thereof," and concluding that "the sheer number of non-

disclosures suggest an overall intent to obfuscate and deceive

with respect to [her] personal litigation and dispute history."

b. Lack of respect for the legal system. As noted,

Chalupowski, along with her husband, initiated several lawsuits

against lawyers, judges, and court-appointed individuals

stemming from the litigation involving her husband's family.

3

Chalupowski, in short, views herself as a victim -- she claims

that the lawyers and court personnel conspired to create a "fee-

generation" scheme using "dupe" litigants -- and her response to

court decisions adverse to her and her husband is to blame the

lawyers and other court personnel by claiming that they were

engaged in fraudulent activity. Chalupowski and her husband did

not prevail on any of the claims raised in these lawsuits.

Rather, they were sanctioned in connection with their actions on

more than one occasion, the lawsuits having been deemed

frivolous, including an order from the Probate and Family Court

enjoining them from initiating certain litigation.

Additionally, at the hearing before the board, Chalupowski

chose to call as witnesses four attorneys who had been involved

in the litigation involving her husband's family and who had

been the targets of the ensuing frivolous litigation commenced

by Chalupowski and her husband. All four of the witnesses spoke

negatively about Chalupowksi, and all four of them recommended

against admitting her to the bar. In a post-hearing submission

to the board, Chalupowski argued that the witnesses were

"adverse" to her and that their statements regarding her

character and fitness should be struck from the record. In

calling these witnesses Chalupowski appeared to be using the

board hearing as yet another opportunity to air her complaints

against them. As the board noted, Chalupowski's choice to call

these four attorneys as witnesses "underscore[s] a lack of

judgment on her part . . . and suggest[s] at best, a propensity

to misunderstand legal process, and at worst, to engage in its

misuse."

2. Discussion. Although we give deference to the decision

of the board, "this court retains ultimate authority to decide a

person's fitness to practice law in the Commonwealth." Strigler

v. Board of Bar Examiners, 448 Mass. 1027, 1029 (2007), quoting

Matter of Prager, 442 Mass. 86, 91 (1996). "Any significant

doubts about an applicant's character should be resolved in

favor of protecting the public by denying admission to the

applicant." Matter of an Application for Admission to the Bar,

444 Mass. 393, 397 (2005), quoting Matter of Prager, supra at

100.

Like the board, we have "significant doubts" about

Chalupowski's character and fitness to practice law. Among

other things, her lack of candor raises questions about her

character. "Candor with the board is essential." Strigler v.

Board of Bar Examiners, supra. As noted above, and considered

in extensive detail by the board, Chalupowski was not candid in

4

her application for admission to the bar. Although she

disclosed some information regarding lawsuits and court

proceedings in which she was involved, the disclosure was far

from complete. Furthermore, in her brief to this court

Chalupowski has made no attempt to address or explain this

failure. Instead, she continues to focus on perceived

wrongdoings in the litigation involving her husband's family,

the substantive merits of which have no bearing on her

application or admission to the bar. Indeed, this very focus on

that litigation -- litigation that has led to sanctions against

her -- is, in turn, an example of Chalupowski's lack of respect

for the legal system, which is also of concern. Chalupowski

appears unable to exercise restraint and to accept certain

decisions as final, instead continuing to seek recourse by

raising frivolous claims against attorneys and court personnel

in response to adverse judgments. Engaging in this type of

litigation is not an indication of good judgment or

professionalism. See Matter of an Application for Admission to

the Bar, supra at 398 (counsel must "show restraint, self-

discipline, and a sense of reality" [citation omitted]).

"Attorneys must conduct themselves in such a way that they

dedicate themselves to the peaceful settlement of disputes and

respect the role of courts in the administration of justice."

Id. Chalupowski has not demonstrated an ability to conduct

herself so.1

A judgment shall enter in the county court affirming the

determination of the board and denying Chalupowksi's application

for admission to the bar.

So ordered.

Malgorzata Chalupowski, pro se.

Matthew C. Welnicki for Board of Bar Examiners.

1

On the eve of her oral argument before this court,

Chalupowski filed a "Motion to Strike the Board of Bar

Examiners' Opposition, Motion to Disqualify, and Motion for

Sanctions," claiming that counsel for the board has "repeatedly

provid[ed] false and misleading information to this Court." We

have carefully reviewed her claim and find it groundless. The

motion is denied.