A Choice

An attorney who was suspended for 27 months in January 2016 cannot appeal a single justice’s order concerning a reinstatement hearing, according to a decision of the full Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

the board has not yet held a hearing on the petition because Diviacchi has objected to providing certain information on the reinstatement questionnaire required by the rules governing reinstatement.

The court held that no interlocutory appeal is permitted.

The full court 

Diviacchi has a choice. He may choose to provide the information requested on the reinstatement questionnaire, or he may maintain his objections to doing so. Regardless of the choice he makes, it will be incumbent on the board to make findings and recommendations to the court with respect to the petition. S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 18 (5). It may be that the board is unable to recommend allowance of the petition if information required by the questionnaire is not provided; that is a matter for the board to decide, as to which we express no view at this interlocutory juncture. Once the board makes its findings and recommendation, the single justice then will be in a position to decide whether Diviacchi has met his “burden of demonstrating that he . . . has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice law in this Commonwealth, and that his or her resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar, the administration of justice, or to the public interest.”
Id. Any party aggrieved by the single justice’s final decision on the matter will be entitled to appeal at that point in accordance with the applicable rules, and it is at that point — after a final appealable decision on the petition has been rendered — that the full court will be in a position to decide all issues regarding reinstatement, including, if it comes to pass and remains relevant, Diviacchi’s objection to providing information required by the questionnaire.

(Mike Frisch)