NHCaseLaw.com

DUGGAN, J. The petitioner, Lisa Holmes, appeals the ruling of the Superior Court (Lynn, J.) prohibiting Theodore Kamasinski from sitting at counsel table during the trial of her divorce from the respondent, Ralph F. Holmes. We affirm.

The issues presently before the court in this divorce action arise out of plaintiff's efforts to discharge her counsel and to substitute a non-lawyer, Theodore Kamasinski, as her "attorney-in- fact." Based largely, although not entirely, upon Mr. Kamasinski's appearance, plaintiff has moved to recuse the undersigned justice from continuing to preside over the case. The defendant objects to the recusal motion and seeks to bar Kamasinski's appearance on the grounds that he is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Also before the court are a motion to withdraw and a motion for instructions filed by plaintiff's present counsel, Attorney Donald Kennedy, and a petition for access to court records filed by Mr. Kamasinski in his capacity as a private citizen. After reciting the pertinent facts, I address these various motions below.

Petitioner Theodore Kamasinski began this action by filing a petition for declaratory judgment, asking the Court to declare that he is not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Pursuant to RSA 311:7-a, Respondents filed a cross-petition, seeking to enjoin Mr. Kamasinski "from appearing in any court in the State of New Hampshire on behalf of any person or entity other than himself personally" and "from rendering, offering to render or holding himself out as rendering any legal service or representation which violates RSA 311:7, i.e. ‘practicing as an attorney in court’[.]" Resp'ts' Answer and Cross-Pet. at 9.