February 16, 1995     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                              _________________________

          No. 94-1731

                                      JOHN BEST,
                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                 DAVID ROME, ET AL.,
                                Defendants, Appellees.

                              __________________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                              __________________________

                                        Before

                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges,
                                            ______________

                             and Carter,* District Judge.
                                          ______________

                              __________________________

               Valeriano Diviacchi for appellant.
               ___________________
               John  McMahon, with  whom  Angoff, Goldman,  Manning,  Pyle,
               _____________              _________________________________
          Wagner & Hiatt, P.C. was on brief, for appellees.
          ____________________

                              __________________________



                              __________________________
          ________________
          *Chief  Judge, United  States District Court  of the  District of
          Maine, sitting by designation. 























                    Per  Curiam.   In  this legal  malpractice action,  the
                    Per  Curiam.
                    ___________

          district  court   granted  summary  judgment  in   favor  of  the

          defendants (a lawyer and his law firm), citing  two independently

          sufficient reasons.  See  Best v. Rome, 858 F.  Supp. 271, 274-78
                               ___  ____    ____

          (D.  Mass.  1994).    Having carefully  considered  the  parties'

          briefs, perused  the record, and  studied the applicable  law, we

          share the district  court's conclusion, id.  at 277-78, that  the
                                                  ___

          record  reveals no genuine issue of material fact on the question

          of malpractice.  Thus, regardless of how the other issues  in the

          case  might be resolved   a matter on which we take no view   the

          judgment below must be upheld.

                    We  need go no further.   As we  have indicated before,

          when  a  district court  produces  a  well-reasoned opinion  that

          reaches  the correct result in a given case, a reviewing tribunal

          should not rush  to write at length merely to  put matters in its

          own words.   See, e.g., In  re San Juan  Dupont Plaza Hotel  Fire
                       ___  ____  _________________________________________

          Litig., 989 F.2d 36, 38 (1st Cir. 1993).  So it is here.  Because
          ______

          we  agree with  the court below  that, in this  case, the summary

          judgment  record contains  no  evidence sufficient  to support  a

          colorable claim of  professional negligence, we  summarily affirm

          the judgment below, for  substantially the reasons articulated in

          the district court's alternative holding.  See Best, 858 F. Supp.
                                                     ___ ____

          at 277-78.   We add only that, despite  our summary affirmance of

          the judgment below,  we do  not regard the  appeal as so  utterly

          lacking  in  merit  as  to  warrant  the  imposition  of  special

          penalties.  We, therefore, deny


                                          2
















           the  defendants' request  for  sanctions,  but award  defendants

          their ordinary costs.





          Affirmed.  See  1st Cir. R. 27.1.  Costs in favor of appellees.
          Affirmed.  See  1st Cir. R. 27.1.  Costs in favor of appellees.
          ________   ___                     ___________________________












































                                          3