In re Weiss
Decision Date | 17 March 2016 |
Docket Number | SJC–11890. |
Citation | 474 Mass. 1001,46 N.E.3d 1024 |
Parties | In the Matter of Richard S. WEISS. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Richard S. Weiss, Boston, pro se.
RESCRIPT.
The petitioner, Richard S. Weiss, appeals from the judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for reinstatement to the bar. We affirm.
After Weiss “stipulated to facts warranting the conclusion that he violated the applicable disciplinary rules,” see Matter of Weiss, 460 Mass. 1012, 1013, 954 N.E.2d 19 (2011)
, he was suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day, effective May 20, 2011. His first petition for reinstatement was denied by a single justice of this court in 2013, and he was given leave to reapply for reinstatement on or after January 1, 2014. See S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 18(8), as appearing in 453 Mass. 1315 (2009). He filed a second petition for reinstatement on June 25, 2013. The single justice denied the petition without prejudice to filing a new petition on or after January 1, 2014. The petition he filed thereafter, his third, is the subject of this appeal.
In these circumstances, duly taking into account the findings and recommendations of the committee and the board, the single justice properly denied reinstatement.
“Unlike nearly all other States, which require that judgment in bar discipline cases shall be by the full court, we in this Commonwealth use the single justice system in such cases.” Matter of Alter, 389 Mass. 153, 156, 448 N.E.2d 1262 (1983)
. We review the single justice's decision (on issues other than the initial choice of a sanction at the disciplinary stage) to determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion or clear error of law. See Matter of McBride, 449 Mass. 154, 865 N.E.2d 1110 (2007) ; Matter of Cobb, 445 Mass. 452, 466, 475, 838 N.E.2d 1197 (2005). While we share the single justice's stated concern in this case that bar counsel may have been attempting to use the reinstatement process to some extent “to extract further punishment for past acknowledged and sanctioned misconduct,” which would have been improper, we find no error in the single justice's ultimate ruling that the hearing committee's and board's findings, report, and recommendation reflect a “careful consideration of the matter” and support the denial for reinstatement....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Moran
...at the disciplinary stage) to determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion or clear error of law." Matter of Weiss, 474 Mass. 1001, 1002, 46 N.E.3d 1024 (2016). There was no error. a. General claims of error. The respondent does not mount a substantial challenge on appeal to the ......
-
In re Diviacchi
...of justice, or to the public interest.’ " Matter of Leo, 484 Mass. 1050, 1051, 144 N.E.3d 294 (2020), quoting Matter of Weiss, 474 Mass. 1001, 1002, 46 N.E.3d 1024 (2016). See S.J.C. Rule 4.01, § 18 (5). The hearing committee found that Diviacchi had demonstrated none of these requirements.......
-
In re Grayer
...in the single justice's determination that the respondent violated multiple rules of professional conduct. See Matter of Weiss, 474 Mass. 1001, 1002, 46 N.E.3d 1024 (2016). a. Count one. In 2014, the respondent agreed to represent a client charged with criminal violation of a restraining or......
-
In re Discipline of An Attorney.
...at the disciplinary stage) to determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion or clear error of law." Matter of Weiss, 474 Mass. 1001, 1002, 46 N.E.3d 1024 (2016).We agree with the single justice that the hearing committee's findings of misconduct are supported by the record and the......