Opinion ID: 2442543
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Infirmity of Proof

Text: D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(c)(2) provides that reciprocal discipline shall be imposed unless the attorney demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that there was such an infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct as to give rise to the clear conviction that the Court could not, consistently with its duty, accept as final the conclusion on that subject.... As noted by the Board, the Connecticut Court found clear and convincing evidence that Williams engaged in the charged misconduct. We decline to engage in a de novo review, for to do so would be inconsistent with the principles of collateral estoppel. [15] [O]ur responsibility in reciprocal matters is not to sit in appellate review of the foreign disciplinary proceedings, in order to determine whether they conformed in every respect to local procedural and substantive law. [16] The burden is on the respondent to establish an infirmity of proof, which Williams has failed to sustain.