
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          March 29, 1996                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                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-
