Supreme Court
In the Matter of Richard A. Pacia. No. 2014-104 M.P.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a petition for reinstatement to the practice of
law filed by Richard A. Pacia (petitioner). On March 24, 2009 the petitioner resigned
from the practice of law in this state. He had been an active member of the bar for thirty
years prior to that date, and had no prior disciplinary history. He was also a respected
member of the bar, and at the time he resigned he was serving as President of the Rhode
Island Bar Association, a position from which he also resigned.
Article III, Rule 23 of the Supreme Court Rules of Disciplinary Procedure,
entitled “Resignation,” provides, in pertinent part: “If a resigned member desires
reinstatement, he or she shall proceed as provided for in Rule 16.” Article III, Rule 16 of
the Supreme Court Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, entitled “Reinstatement,” is the
procedural rule applicable to reinstatement applications of suspended or disbarred
attorneys. While the petitioner has never been suspended or disbarred, he must comply
with the procedural requirements of Rule 16 to be reinstated. Those requirements include
the payment of a $500 filing fee payable to the Clerk of the Court and submission of a
completed reinstatement questionnaire to Disciplinary Counsel. The petitioner has met
those requirements. Additionally, Rule 16(d) requires that any attorney who has been
disbarred or suspended for more than one year must successfully pass the Multi-state
Professional Responsibility Examination (M.P.R.E.) prior to filing a petition for
reinstatement. The petitioner has not done so, under the belief that this provision is not
applicable to his circumstances. We recognize that there may be some arguable
1
ambiguity as to whether this provision is applicable to a resigned rather than a suspended
or disbarred attorney, and we note that we have not previously addressed this precise
question in a formal opinion or order of this Court. We conclude that, based on the
unique circumstances presented in this reinstatement application, the petitioner should be
required to achieve a passing score on the M.P.R.E. as a condition of his full
reinstatement to the practice of law, and we decline to set a precedential ruling on this
issue at this time. However, we will not penalize the petitioner for his good faith
interpretation of the rule, and we will provide him the opportunity to pass that exam as a
condition subsequent to his reinstatement.
Pursuant to Rule 16(c), a petitioner for reinstatement, whether resigned,
suspended, or disbarred, has the burden of demonstrating to this Court “by clear and
convincing evidence that he or she has the moral qualifications, competency and learning
in law required for admission to practice law in this state and that his or her resumption
of the practice of law within the state will be neither detrimental to the integrity and
standing of the Bar or the administration of justice nor subversive of the public interest.”
Disciplinary Counsel has conducted an investigation of the petitioner as required by
Article III, Rule 5(b)(4) of the Supreme Court Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, and he
has submitted his report to the Court. Disciplinary Counsel has advised the Court that he
has no objection to the granting of the petition for reinstatement, subject to the condition
that he be reinstated under the supervision of a member of the bar of this state.
We directed the petitioner to appear before the Court at its conference on May 28,
2014 to show cause why his petition should be granted. Having heard the representations
of the petitioner, his counsel, and Disciplinary Counsel and having reviewed the record, it
2
is our opinion that the petitioner has met the requirements to resume the practice of law.
However, we believe that the circumstances of this reinstatement application require that
his resumption of the practice of law be monitored by a member of the bar.
We note that the petitioner has not been publicly disciplined by this Court.
However, we would be remiss if we failed to address the circumstances of the petitioner’s
seemingly-abrupt decision to resign from both the presidency of the Bar Association and
his membership in the bar. At the time of his resignation, the petitioner was the subject
of an investigation by Disciplinary Counsel. That investigation was not complete, but the
petitioner recognized that he faced possible formal disciplinary charges and public
opprobrium as a result of both his conduct and his position. He resigned to save both
himself and the bar from embarrassment.
Disciplinary Counsel subsequently completed his investigation into allegations of
misconduct by the petitioner. That investigation revealed substantial discrepancies in the
petitioner’s client account, resulting in a shortfall of funds which he should have been
retaining for clients and third parties. However, that shortfall was not the result of
intentional misappropriation of funds on the part of the petitioner. Rather, the
investigation revealed serious mismanagement and a lack of oversight of his accounts
that bordered on recklessness. Additionally, the petitioner was also named as a defendant
in several civil actions alleging legal malpractice. Those matters have been resolved, and
there are no financial claims outstanding against petitioner.
The disciplinary board reviewed the petitioner’s conduct in those matters, and
concluded that the imposition of private letters of reprimand was a sufficient sanction to
impose. A major factor in the board’s decision was that the petitioner had been
3
voluntarily removed from the practice of law for more than five years, a period in excess
of any discipline that he may have received had formal charges been filed.
The petitioner has never been charged with criminal conduct and, as previously
noted, has no prior disciplinary history. He was an active member of the bar association,
serving in many capacities, including service as an officer and organizing many
continuing legal education programs. We have received many letters of support from
members of the bar attesting to his integrity and competence as an attorney. We believe
that he can return to the practice of law as a productive member of the bar.
Accordingly, the petition for reinstatement is hereby granted. However,
petitioner’s resumption of the practice of law shall be monitored for a period of two years
by Anthony J. Gianfrancesco, Esquire. The petitioner shall fully cooperate with Attorney
Gianfrancesco and Disciplinary Counsel regarding the monitoring of his practice, and
Attorney Gianfrancesco shall submit written reports on a quarterly basis to Disciplinary
Counsel regarding his review of the petitioner’s practice.
Additionally, this reinstatement is subject to the condition that the petitioner take
the next-available Multi-state Professional Responsibility Examination, obtain a passing
score, and submit a copy of his test result to the Clerk of the Court and to Disciplinary
Counsel. Failure to obtain a passing score on that examination may result in the
revocation of this order of reinstatement.
Entered as an Order of this Court this 11th Day of June, 2014.
By Order,
___________/s/________________
Clerk
4
RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT CLERK’S OFFICE
Clerk’s Office Order/Opinion Cover Sheet
TITLE OF CASE: In the Matter of Richard A. Pacia.
CASE NO: No. 2014-104-M.P.
COURT: Supreme Court
DATE ORDER FILED: June 11, 2014
JUSTICES: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia, JJ.
WRITTEN BY: N/A – Court Order
JUDGE FROM LOWER COURT:
N/A – Court Order
ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL:
For Petitioner: David Curtin, Esq.
Chief Disciplinary Counsel
For Respondent: Anthony M. Traini, Esq.