drastically increase the punishment without providing a clear and convincing reason for doing so the answer is no due process and fairness require that the sister course order be given due respect and not deviated from unless the nd court has clearly commit the reasons for changing the punishment there are several reasons why this is the case but there are all rooted in this idea that it was the st court that provided the process the st court heard from the witnesses conducted a trial took in exhibits and then rendered a decision so their decision should be given deference this is not a lot unlike this court when reviewing a trial below will give  court's decisions right this matter started when the united states district court for the southern district of florida issued a show cause order to mr rubenstein ask him why identical punishment should not be entered against him filed in federal courts in illinois and california those courses not disciplined mr rubenstein but he is also barred in texas and that was the jurisdiction that issued the punishment and so mr robinson agreed to the imposition of identical punishment but it was at this point that the southern district learned of four other instances where mr rubinstein's name appeared on cases filed by a nother lawyer and signed by that other lawyer within the matter the southern district did improperly disbarred mr rubenstein based on all of these matters without following its own written procedures and allowing mr rubenstein to respond to the new charges and evidentiary hearing so this court then reversed that order of disbarment and sent a case back for further proceedings which would have included the right to an evidentiary hearing on the new matters that the southern district determine to pursue those and this but this court did take notice that issue of reciprocal punishment of an order of a two year probate suspension the southern district disport mr rubenstein without providing any reasons for the drastic escalation of the punishment now we believe the southern district erred when in a reciprocal punishment matter it drastically escalated the punishment from a probated suspension to disport it without giving clear increment your reasons for doing so in punishment the presumption is that the new punishment will be identical or as i didn't go as possible to the original punishment not there is a good reason why this is the case the st court is the primary court all they have to do is review the process that the st court provided make sure it's constitutional due process type of process and they can issue the resettable punishment so let me ask you only let me ask you a question about this  so for whatever reason and i'm asked the other side of this the judges of the southern district of florida do not like this rubenstein well what relief are you seeking from us what is it that you're asking us to tell the southern district that has to do in light of in light of that's what they need to do good question we believe there is a problem you can't unring the bell we do think that if you look  back what actually happened in there was this hearing where this quarter in the region opinion said that it was a bit of all the proper procedures and given proper notice was really signed was somewhat cut by surprise and then it was his alleged cavalier response that was the reason for this additional punishment so it's sometimes st impressions are lasting impressions and it's awfully hard to understand the bill we would like this court to sin this case back to start again with the ad hoc committee that's what happened with the other four charges that it was sent back with the ad hoc committee and that process we believe resulted where the bill was an wrong if you will it's a we would we would ask that you have very good arguments i think based deem appropriate yet so we believe that in reciprocal punishment cases the case law followed by all the case that we have been cited and i'm not aware of a case that goes otherwise states that the presumption is identical punishment now does that mean they have to issue the same punishment no they actually they can increase it but they have to have clear incumbency reasons for doing so the case offered up by the by the apple e is the florida bar believe it's in the material provides a great example on how that works out in that situation and the original postman that was given by massachusetts with a four year suspension the florida court said we don't think that's enough this is bribe a public official they gave very specific reasons why it escalated a punishment to do formant it and that makes sense in that context because you're given specific reasons that we view this extra bat in our jurisdiction we don't have to be look at the facts  we're going to take them as given that didn't happen here there was no reason given once this court sent the case back on the matter of reciprocal punishment they just said ok disbarred  process what is the process that is both here in the standard is that in a court must follow its rules and procedures in reciprocal punishment cases the presumption is identical punishment or as near as as a dimple as possible saying makes sense to me but what i'm having a hard time doing is finding those principles and the rules that a court is operating under here i think is the due process concerns that under afforded in this situation the nd court has to give deference to the funny if they just go on their own then mr rubenstein is lack the opportunity to present his case to present witnesses to to cross examine people if if  process and i would put it in violation of the due process rights i think when you look at this case from the context of what all the courts did it really shines a light as to but the problem of all the of a course that by quoting what this court said in its last opinion which i think those mountains on remain and then the southern district is free to enter a new order imposing reciprocal discipline without any further process any further process and because rubenstein had colon fair due process as the texas judgement and the southern district local disciplinary rule three provides notice that any sanction may be imposed wh called discipline is considered nothing here and restricts the southern district as to what the appropriate discipline should be based on soley the texas judgment and that's exactly  remained the chief judge had an immediate a hearing with mr rubenstein present and his warriors he discussed the order of the th circuit he indicated to them that they were going committee the activity that he did in florida for reconsideration remembering now that the at health committee had already considered the texas judgment and this court found that that their actions were appropriate even gave them an opportunity to file a written response and notwithstanding the fact that the it has basically been completed they ask for one hundred and four day extension to file a response one hundred and four days he one hundred and four dollars days and what is that response it's three pages with two documents he knew that the possibility of disbarment was on the table all law there was no request for a hearing none and he still gave them an opportunity to proceed process on the texas judge and that's what it says notwithstanding to the judge offered them an opportunity to respond and file additional pleading as they wait one hundred and five dollars days and give a three page response three they never requested any form of hearing air go no due process issue whatsoever as far as the way this was handled in the trial court level let's turn to the use of discretion argument and  explains why one might this parlous lawyer but you know there's just no order that explains why they chose disbarment as the appropriate punishment and i was just let me say this to you about about that you asked what what record evidence is they should just part of this man ok live from pages eight through twelve for five pages we recreate with the things this man has done he has been disbarred in texas for ten years he's should she have the record the record is replete with all of the things that that he has done in the past which constituted the basis of we don't have what we don't have a record of we don't have any we don't have a rationale or wh that the evidence again in this man's misconduct is been going on for twenty years he's i mean just give me one minute seriously he's he's been suspect he's been disbarred he's been suspended twice in texas he  has he has lied in eleven applications in california and it only federal courts he files an affidavit in a in this is all in the record it's all on the record if i was a california affidavit admitting to all this any mediately turns around and does it again in federal court he's failed the fuck out ph of pro hockey she admissions in california he said and here's the thing judgment yes man you've asked judge pressure you asked me why would the court disbarment and i'll tell you why because this man has had nothing but multiple slaps on the risks by every court that's touched california florida supreme court they've adopted they've adopted none of them took any action the ad hoc committee that interviewed him on the texas judgments and it's in the record even the ad hoc committee observes that the man had a cavalier attitude really didn't give a give a darn in his responses it's no wonder the man continues to do it now in all these misrepresentations all these things he's done he has violated the a b a and the state bar rules including florida which require candor to the court and prohibit conduct involving deceit and that and the florida bar says that that type of conduct which the local rules adopt the florida bar rules says is of the record absolutely all of this and we cite to every one of these from the record in our brief from ages eight to twelve now this court finally has enough gumption to say we're not going to condone it we're not going to condone this conduct anymore it's time to condemn it and they say we don't want this man in our court and they do it you know and i'm asleep i mean i think this court took the exact appropriate action and it was warranted so that's how i would answer your your question judge rasher about why you think this should be escalated this man has got nothing but slap on the wrist and he continues to do it and why and why and why the federal courts all across the country as if you want has any as there been any funding by anyone i mean and maybe you're right i have no idea but has there been any ponding by anyone that these prolog cations were intentionally dishonest and that it wasn't just you know advantage of their own rules gave them the authority to do this and they did it let me ask you this let's say we were to adopt a rule that that just requires a a court to give an explanation for someone as a matter of due process or as a matter of just being in charge of the profession we just say that's the rule the court can't disbar someone and prevent them practicing without an explanation if that were the rule would there be any basis for us it just says that we all considered it and as a result we believe you should be disbarred that's what it says on this issue of redress of prosody you know i think i've already answered that you know we rely there's several cases cramer and the selling versus raptor case that says that he has the burden of coming forward and showing that what they did is wrong that's i mean that's it but besides that the evidence is there to support the order it's all in the record the court did what it did and it and it and it it took an action that such quite frankly these courts should have done prior to this time and nobody had really nobody had to gumption to do it it's of the southern district of florida and say we just don't want to man to start all these lies over all these years appearing in front of us i think that court has the right to do that now you can be credible and say ok maybe maybe and have judge the judge write an order of something and do something along that lines if that's what you want to do i i don't think it's required but if that's what you want to do that's one thing but i'm just saying to you seriously  rubenstein has been misrepresenting forever he's been suspended he's had multiple slaps i mean this court finally had the gumption to do something right and they did it and you know and quite frankly i'm sort of proud of the baby it does my past  but you know i but it is you know it's it is what it is and so that's that's our position judge thank you time they rightfully saw what was the problem he the office management issue and they made him correct that and i think we're very happy with that with that result but here you just heard a lot of accusations that are not unfounded here he let's take a look at after all that happened in the past that is not a long history of antisocial lying and that's one of the problems you have when the proper process is not followed and so the texas court is the one to the process have the trial heard from the from that they did not view this as being intentional deception of a repetitive nature like what you're seeing now as being the basis for a possible department which goes to your questions about should we not have reasons given the answer is yes it is the reason happy given below not in a responsible because number one response rate is not a vote by the entire court it is just something that is put in a briefing on behalf of the southern district but we definitely didn't have a decision to brief i want to respond to the suggestion that they don't have to give you cited a case that says in some cases you don't have to give the reason you can just merely enter an order on mr go punishment cases we agree with that if the matter is going to be identical punishment one acre of your property and this court were to say well based on the same thing we're going take one hundred acres of your property and not give a reason inherently that's unfair you have to give a reason when you ratcheted up i think as you saw demonstrated in this case there is some ill will and i don't know where this ill will came from it's not justified in the record none of the other courts thought texas did not see it i can only see thing that this came from just this poorly called  improperly called hearing the st time around where the proper notice was not given and i do believe that mr rubenstein was caught off guard he did answer honestly you can't find any of his answers that weren't true but they used his cavalier attitude i don't even know what a cavalier attitude is but nonetheless we do think if you're going to destroy our someone you know it to them to give the reasons why so that when we have a basis to appeal it and also the other judges in the southern district also can review that say yes we we agree with that so we back to the st question you asked about remedy we do think it would be very beneficial to send this case back to the ad hoc committee where this began i think that's where the problem started bill was was wrong with that ad hoc committee meeting that was a surprise meeting i think we're seeing the point of the fruit from the poisonous tree from the situation we would ask is this get sent back to that level so we can start there hopefully with a