Title: In the Matter of the Discipline of an Attorney

State: massachusetts

Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Document:

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-11673 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE DISCIPLINE OF AN ATTORNEY. 
 
 
December 23, 2014. 
 
 
Attorney at Law, Disciplinary proceeding.  Practice, Civil, 
Intervention, Moot case.  Moot Question. 
 
 
 
Gregory Langadinos filed a motion in the county court 
seeking to intervene in a bar discipline proceeding claiming 
that the individuals involved in the proceeding, including 
assistant bar counsel, the attorney who was the subject of the 
proceeding, the attorney's counsel, and the witnesses, engaged 
in a conspiracy to "vilify" him.  Langadinos is a former 
employee of the attorney.  He also claims that he is a former 
client, and that, among other things, the attorney sought to 
blame the attorney's own wrongdoing, which was the basis for the 
disciplinary proceeding, on Langadinos.  A single justice denied 
the motion to intervene, and Langadinos appeals.  We affirm. 
 
 
Because the bar discipline proceeding in which Langadinos 
sought to intervene is now concluded, his appeal is moot.1  See 
Rasten v. Northeastern Univ., 432 Mass. 1003 (2000), cert. 
denied, 531 U.S. 1168 (2001).  Even if we were to consider the 
appeal on the merits, we would not disturb the single justice's 
ruling.  Langadinos claims that he has a right to intervene 
pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 24 (a) and (b), 365 Mass. 769 
(1974).  The rules of civil procedure, however, do not apply in 
bar discipline proceedings.  See Mass. R. Civ. P. 81 (a) (1), as 
amended, 450 Mass. 1405 (2008).  Furthermore, the rule that does 
apply, S.J.C. Rule 4:01, does not contemplate intervention by a 
private individual, and Langadinos has no right to be a party to 
                                                 
1 The attorney was suspended from the practice of law for 
six months and one day. 
2 
 
the bar discipline proceedings.  Cf. Matter of the Petition of 
Smallwood, ante    (2014) (private individual may file complaint 
with Commission on Judicial Conduct and may participate as 
witness in commission proceeding but is not party); Gorbatova v. 
First Assistant Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court for the 
County of Suffolk, 463 Mass. 1019 (2012) (private individual may 
file complaint with Board of Bar Overseers and participate as 
witness in board proceeding but is not party); Matter of a 
Request for an Investigation of an Attorney, 449 Mass. 1013, 
1014 (2007) (private individual cannot commence judicial action 
challenging bar counsel's decision not to pursue complaint 
against attorney). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Order denying motion to 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  intervene affirmed. 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Gregory Langadinos, pro se.