Attorneys – Reinstatement

Listen to this article

Where a single justice denied a third petition for reinstatement to the practice of law, that decision should be upheld based on substantial evidence that the petitioner did not meet his burden of establishing his current moral fitness to resume the practice of law.

“The petitioner, Valeriano Diviacchi, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his third petition for reinstatement to the practice of law. Upon review of the petitioner’s submissions and the underlying record, we affirm. …

“A petitioner seeking reinstatement has the burden of demonstrating, inter alia, that he or she has the moral fitness to resume the practice of law. …

“Here, we discern no error in the conclusion of the board and the single justice that Diviacchi failed to meet his burden. …

“In sum, we agree with the single justice that there was substantial evidence to support the board’s conclusion that Diviacchi did not meet his burden of establishing his current moral fitness to resume the practice of law, and the single justice did not commit an error of law or abuse his discretion in denying the third petition for reinstatement.

“Judgment affirmed.”

In the Matter of Diviacchi (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-139-25) (6 pages) (Rescript) (Docket No. SJC-13791) (Dec. 26, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.