Steven D. DiLibero (2026)

seek lawful objectives of client); 1.3 (diligence); 1.4(b) (communication with Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.1 (competence); 1.2(a) (must The BBO determined that Attornen Dil ibero violated the folloiпа would carry no adverse immigration consequences. request, Attorney DiLibero falsely denied ever advising the client that the CWOF provide an incomplete response approximately five months after the initial requests for a copy of the client's file and for other information, and when he did CWOF. Attorney DiLibero failed to respond promptly to successor counsel's federal law. The client then retained successor counsel to obtain relief from the insisted (incorrectly) that the CWOF would not count as a conviction under was incorrect; when the client shared that information with Attorney DiLibero, he learned from an immigration attorney that the advice given by Attorney DiLibero inadmissible to the United States, and ineligible for citizenship. The client later immediately deportable, subject to mandatory detention, permanently Contrary to Attorney DiLibero's advice, the CWOF rendered the client sufficient facts as to one count of possession of heroin with intent to distribute. the client, a permanent U.S. resident who hoped to become a citizen, admitted to continuance without a finding (CWOF) in a criminal case. Following that advice. client regarding the immigration-related consequences of accepting a six-month (BBO). The BBO found that Attorney DiLibero gave incorrect legal advice to a findings and recommendation of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers The Supreme Judicial Court issued the suspension based on the factual

the practice of law for three years or disbarred in New Hampshire." New Hampshire" and that Attorney DiLibero"should either be suspended from DiLibero's"misconduct does not warrant the imposition of identical discipline in conditions. With that filing, the ADO set forth its position that Attorney suspension to be served and the balance stayed for one year on specified Massachusetts for a period of one year, with six months and one day of the respondent, Attorney Steven D. DiLibero, from the practice of law in Court for Suffolk County (Supreme Judicial Court), which suspended the of the order of term suspension issued by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial On April 4, 2025, the Attorney Discipline Office (ADO) filed a certified copy

LD-2025-0003, In the Matter of Steven D. DiLibero, Esquire