Q&A: How a Mother of Three With No Lawyer and No Computer Won at the Pa. Supreme Court
When tasked with arguing a complicated issue of statutory construction before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, a law firm might call upon its most seasoned appellate lawyer and a small army of associates to spend countless hours poring over case law and legislative history using state-of-the-art of legal research software. Shannon McGrath, a mother of three from Pittsburgh with a nursing degree and no background in the law, used her smartphone.
December 14, 2017 at 05:21 PM
15 minute read
When tasked with arguing a complicated issue of statutory construction before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, a law firm might call upon its most seasoned appellate lawyer and a small army of associates to spend countless hours poring over case law and legislative history using state-of-the-art of legal research software.
Shannon McGrath, a mother of three from Pittsburgh with a nursing degree and no background in the law, used her smartphone.
In 2013, McGrath's nursing license was suspended by the state Board of Nursing for a mandatory period of 10 years after she pleaded guilty to one count of acquisition or possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception or subterfuge, for which she received a sentence of probation without verdict.
McGrath appealed the board's decision pro se, arguing that while the Professional Nursing Law limits the board's ability to reissue a revoked license, the law affords the board wide discretion in reissuing suspended licenses on a case-by-case basis and does not require a 10-year waiting period.
A 5-2 majority of the Commonwealth Court en banc agreed, overruling its own 2014 decision in Packer v. Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, Department of State, State Board of Nursing.
The board appealed to the Supreme Court, which took up the case in February. McGrath forged ahead without counsel.
In November, the justices unanimously affirmed the lower court, finding that the board has the discretion to reinstate suspended licenses as soon as it sees fit to do so, provided the decision is made in accordance with its regulations.
McGrath talked to The Legal about what it was like to learn appellate law on the fly while singlehandedly taking her case to the state's highest court—and being a mom to two young children and a teenager.
The responses were edited for style and clarity.
What was the first step in challenging the license suspension?
My first move was to appeal it to the state Board of Nursing to request a hearing. They gave me a hearing. However, I had to drive to Harrisburg and I was about 15 minutes late so they held the hearing without me and upheld the ruling. I asked for a new hearing but they denied it.
How long of a drive is that?
It's about a four-and-a-half-hour drive from Pittsburgh and I got lost. I called them [to tell them I was running late] but they held the hearing without me.
After that, I appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
Did you originally look to hire a lawyer?
I did, but they were too expensive. I couldn't afford to pay as much money as any of them was asking. I did contact a couple of attorneys, but they all had the same price range, so I just said, “Nope.” I could haven't done it anyway. I just couldn't afford it.
What was your process like in terms of researching the law and writing the briefs?
My first letter that I wrote to appeal to the board was so generic and terrible. It was just me saying, “I would like to request a hearing” pretty much. And then I had to do a couple of briefs in between. The first few were terrible—not even the correct format or anything like that. Then [the board] would send a reply brief and I was like, “Oh, it's supposed to look more like that.” Then [the court] would tell me the codes to abide by so I'd look at that. After the first two or three, I got better at it.
And how did you do the research?
I didn't even know what to look for at first. I don't have a computer so I had to use my phone, which is a real tiny Android phone. It was pretty hard to do—not to mention my kids were running around in the background and I would have to wait until they kind of settled down. Pretty much any chance I got I would read case law or do research whenever my kids were at the park or after they went to sleep.
With no computer, how did you write the briefs?
I would handwrite them in a notebook and then go to the library to use the computer, print them there, and then make copies at FedEx.
Did you have any help from attorneys?
No. I tried to get an attorney to work pro bono and none of them agreed to it. I just gave up even trying to ask. That's when I just realized I'd have to it myself, so I did.
Have you ever had any prior interest in the law or in being a lawyer?
I have but I never had to do any type of research to that extent. I've only researched traffic laws because I've had a couple of traffic citations.
With no background in the law, how did you develop your statutory construction argument?
I didn't even know about statutory construction until the board said it. I thought, “Well, what is that?” And then I thought, “Oh crap, they might be right [in their interpretation of the statute].” But then when I learned about statutory construction, and read the law with that in mind, I thought, “Well no, they're wrong.” You have to take into consideration the whole statute that has to do with how laws are supposed to be read. I read the whole the thing. I read the whole thing about how laws are written, read, implemented and changed.
Did any attorneys reach out to you once the case was taken up by the Supreme Court?
At that point, I did call one of the attorneys that I had talked to prior, just trying to see if he could help. I let him know what was going on, that the board appealed [the Commonwealth Court ruling]—just talking to him about it to see if he would offer to help at that point. I didn't outright ask but I was trying to talk about it just to see if he would offer, but he didn't.
During that conversation, he asked me how I won [at the Commonwealth Court], and I said, “Well, I'm not going to tell you.” I figured if he would have offered to help me with the Supreme Court, I would have shown him some of the stuff [I had compiled], but he did not, so I would not tell him. He can look it up now anyway.
So then you had to write another brief.
I had to write my answer to their [appeal brief]. I kind of just reiterated the original argument, but I decided to add a few more things in there.
And what happened after that?
And then I waited. I waited about four to six months. It was a while and I was getting kind of antsy thinking, “This can't be good.”
What was your reaction when you got the opinion?
I was pulling up to my house when I saw an envelope and I knew it was something from [the Supreme Court] because they always send everything in a big envelope. I just got nervous. I had to read through this thing. I skimmed to the last three pages and once I realized I won, I went back and read the whole thing.
I was relieved. I knew I had a good argument. Just the fact I did it myself, I thought that would have worked against me. But I guess if you're right, you're right.
When tasked with arguing a complicated issue of statutory construction before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, a law firm might call upon its most seasoned appellate lawyer and a small army of associates to spend countless hours poring over case law and legislative history using state-of-the-art of legal research software.
Shannon McGrath, a mother of three from Pittsburgh with a nursing degree and no background in the law, used her smartphone.
In 2013, McGrath's nursing license was suspended by the state Board of Nursing for a mandatory period of 10 years after she pleaded guilty to one count of acquisition or possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception or subterfuge, for which she received a sentence of probation without verdict.
McGrath appealed the board's decision pro se, arguing that while the Professional Nursing Law limits the board's ability to reissue a revoked license, the law affords the board wide discretion in reissuing suspended licenses on a case-by-case basis and does not require a 10-year waiting period.
A 5-2 majority of the Commonwealth Court en banc agreed, overruling its own 2014 decision in Packer v. Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, Department of State, State Board of Nursing.
The board appealed to the Supreme Court, which took up the case in February. McGrath forged ahead without counsel.
In November, the justices unanimously affirmed the lower court, finding that the board has the discretion to reinstate suspended licenses as soon as it sees fit to do so, provided the decision is made in accordance with its regulations.
McGrath talked to The Legal about what it was like to learn appellate law on the fly while singlehandedly taking her case to the state's highest court—and being a mom to two young children and a teenager.
The responses were edited for style and clarity.
What was the first step in challenging the license suspension?
My first move was to appeal it to the state Board of Nursing to request a hearing. They gave me a hearing. However, I had to drive to Harrisburg and I was about 15 minutes late so they held the hearing without me and upheld the ruling. I asked for a new hearing but they denied it.
How long of a drive is that?
It's about a four-and-a-half-hour drive from Pittsburgh and I got lost. I called them [to tell them I was running late] but they held the hearing without me.
After that, I appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
Did you originally look to hire a lawyer?
I did, but they were too expensive. I couldn't afford to pay as much money as any of them was asking. I did contact a couple of attorneys, but they all had the same price range, so I just said, “Nope.” I could haven't done it anyway. I just couldn't afford it.
What was your process like in terms of researching the law and writing the briefs?
My first letter that I wrote to appeal to the board was so generic and terrible. It was just me saying, “I would like to request a hearing” pretty much. And then I had to do a couple of briefs in between. The first few were terrible—not even the correct format or anything like that. Then [the board] would send a reply brief and I was like, “Oh, it's supposed to look more like that.” Then [the court] would tell me the codes to abide by so I'd look at that. After the first two or three, I got better at it.
And how did you do the research?
I didn't even know what to look for at first. I don't have a computer so I had to use my phone, which is a real tiny Android phone. It was pretty hard to do—not to mention my kids were running around in the background and I would have to wait until they kind of settled down. Pretty much any chance I got I would read case law or do research whenever my kids were at the park or after they went to sleep.
With no computer, how did you write the briefs?
I would handwrite them in a notebook and then go to the library to use the computer, print them there, and then make copies at FedEx.
Did you have any help from attorneys?
No. I tried to get an attorney to work pro bono and none of them agreed to it. I just gave up even trying to ask. That's when I just realized I'd have to it myself, so I did.
Have you ever had any prior interest in the law or in being a lawyer?
I have but I never had to do any type of research to that extent. I've only researched traffic laws because I've had a couple of traffic citations.
With no background in the law, how did you develop your statutory construction argument?
I didn't even know about statutory construction until the board said it. I thought, “Well, what is that?” And then I thought, “Oh crap, they might be right [in their interpretation of the statute].” But then when I learned about statutory construction, and read the law with that in mind, I thought, “Well no, they're wrong.” You have to take into consideration the whole statute that has to do with how laws are supposed to be read. I read the whole the thing. I read the whole thing about how laws are written, read, implemented and changed.
Did any attorneys reach out to you once the case was taken up by the Supreme Court?
At that point, I did call one of the attorneys that I had talked to prior, just trying to see if he could help. I let him know what was going on, that the board appealed [the Commonwealth Court ruling]—just talking to him about it to see if he would offer to help at that point. I didn't outright ask but I was trying to talk about it just to see if he would offer, but he didn't.
During that conversation, he asked me how I won [at the Commonwealth Court], and I said, “Well, I'm not going to tell you.” I figured if he would have offered to help me with the Supreme Court, I would have shown him some of the stuff [I had compiled], but he did not, so I would not tell him. He can look it up now anyway.
So then you had to write another brief.
I had to write my answer to their [appeal brief]. I kind of just reiterated the original argument, but I decided to add a few more things in there.
And what happened after that?
And then I waited. I waited about four to six months. It was a while and I was getting kind of antsy thinking, “This can't be good.”
What was your reaction when you got the opinion?
I was pulling up to my house when I saw an envelope and I knew it was something from [the Supreme Court] because they always send everything in a big envelope. I just got nervous. I had to read through this thing. I skimmed to the last three pages and once I realized I won, I went back and read the whole thing.
I was relieved. I knew I had a good argument. Just the fact I did it myself, I thought that would have worked against me. But I guess if you're right, you're right.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. High Court to Weigh Parent Company's Liability for Dissolved Subsidiary's Conduct
3 minute readDon’t Settle for the Minimum: Finding Constitutional Claims Closer to Home
7 minute readMatt's Corner: RPC 8.4(d)—Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice
2 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250