No. BD-2015-042
Judgment Denying Reinstatement
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUFFOLK, SS.
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
FOR SUFFOLK COUNTY
NO: BD-2015-042
IN RE: VALERIANO DIVIACCHI
JUDGMENT DENYING REINSTATEMENT
This matter came before the court, (Kafker, J.) on a Petition for Reinstatement pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 18 and the Vote of the Board of Bar Overseers (board) recommending that the petitioner Valeriano Diviacchi's third Petition for Reinstatement be denied, filed by the Board on March 25, 2025.1 In so voting the board unanimously adopted the findings, conclusions and disposition recommended by a hearing panel after a one-day evidentiary hearing, at which the petitioner represented himself. At the hearing Diviacchi testified only briefly and presented no other witnesses. A petitioner for reinstatement bears the burden to demonstrate that he meets the requirements for reinstatement contained in S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 18(5). Under the rule, a petitioner must prove that he presently has "[1] the moral qualifications, [2] competency and learning in law required for admission to practice law in this Commonwealth, and [3] that his resumption of the practice of law [would] not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar, the administration of justice, or to the public interest." See Matter of Daniels, 442 Mass. 1037, 1038 (2004); Matter of Hiss, 368 Mass. 447, 460 (1975). In reviewing the board's decision, "the subsidiary facts found by the [b]oard shall be upheld if supported by substantial evidence, upon consideration of the record, or such portions as may be cited by the parties." S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 18 (5).
Here the board concluded that the petitioner had not met his burden on any of the rule's three requirements. Regarding moral qualifications, the first required showing, the petitioner did not call a single witness to testify as to his good character. His filings continued to attack the legitimacy of the proceedings that led to his suspension. And although he stated in an affidavit that he would stop being angry and combative, he continued to engage in such behavior at the hearing on his reinstatement.
Regarding competency and learning in the law, there is no doubt that the petitioner possesses the requisite intellect to practice law: since his last reinstatement hearing he has passed the California bar exam and completed a PhD thesis in philosophy. Although these achievements do weigh in the petitioner's favor, the board correctly found that the petitioner has undertaken only minimal efforts to maintain his knowledge of Massachusetts law. He has read issues of the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, but has not taken any continuing legal education courses, nor has he petitioned this court's rules committee to take the Massachusetts bar exam, as discussed in the court's opinion affirming the denial of his second petition. See Diviacchi, 491 Mass. at 1008 n.8.
Several of the above findings also bear on the third relevant consideration, whether reinstatement would be "detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar, the administration of justice, or to the public interest." S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 18(5). The petitioner's deficiencies in maintaining his knowledge of Massachusetts law and his failure to address his temperament issues indicate that his reinstatement would not be in the public interest. The petitioner's continued disrespect for the bar discipline process further supports the board's conclusion.2
In light of the above, and upon consideration of the record of proceedings and subsequent written arguments filed by the petitioner and assistant bar counsel,3 the court concludes that substantial evidence supports the board's conclusion that the petitioner has not proven that reinstatement is merited. Although the petitioner put forth some evidence in his favor, the evidence as a whole is not materially different from the insufficient showings made in support of his previous two petitions for reinstatement, particularly in respect to knowledge of Massachusetts law and professional temperament. See Matter of Waitz, 416 Mass. 298, 305-306 (1993) (board's denial of reinstatement supported where, among other infirmities, "sole evidence of [petitioner's] civic, charitable, and social activities consisted of his repetition of evidence already heard at prior hearings"). Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition for reinstatement be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
At this time, the court confirms that the petitioner may apply again for reinstatement according to the time frame sent forth in S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 18(5), but cautions that it may order otherwise in the future if the petitioner persists in seeking reinstatement without putting forth a good-faith effort to carry his burden of demonstrating that he meets the requirements for reinstatement.
By the Court, (Kafker, J.)
Allison S. Cartwright, Clerk
Dated: July 9, 2025
__________________________
1 The respondent was suspended for twenty-seven months effective January 2, 2016, as discussed in further detail in Matter of Diviacchi, 475 Mass. 1013 (2016). He subsequently filed two petitions for reinstatement, both of which were denied. See Matter of Diviacchi, 491 Mass. 1003 (2022).
2 The panel summarized it aptly thus: "He is noticeably fixated on flouting or fighting the established standards rather than focusing on meeting them."
3 On May 16, 2025 this court granted the petitioner's conditional motion to waive argument and hearing, and canceled the hearing that had been scheduled for May 20.
From: |
|
To: |
|
|
Link to In the Matter of Valeriano Diviacchi will be added to email before message text. |
|