Opinion ID: 2634535
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: ¶ 12 The OPC's argument that Rule 22 contemplates the imposition of sanctions more severe than equivalent discipline in reciprocal proceedings is not supported by the language of the Rule. While nowhere in Rule 22 is increased discipline expressly prohibited, there is simply no language in the rule to indicate authority to apply harsher sanctions. To the contrary, as the district court noted, it is clear from the language in subsection (d) of Rule 22, which allows the respondent attorney to contest equivalent discipline, that the possibility of only an equivalent or less severe sanction was contemplated by the drafters of the rule. Therefore, while Rule 22 could conceivably be read to allow harsher sanctions in the absence of explicit prohibitory language to that effect, the plain language of the rule suggests a contrary intent by the drafters. ¶ 13 In its brief and at oral argument, the OPC referred to decisions in which other jurisdictions with similar, but not identical, reciprocal discipline rules have interpreted those rules to include the possibility of increased sanctions. However, the rules in those jurisdictions explicitly allow for regulators to contest equivalent discipline, which the courts have interpreted to include advocating harsher sanctions. See, e.g., In re Zdravkovich, 831 A.2d 964, 968-69 (D.C.2003); People v. Apker, 67 P.3d 23, 24-25 (Colo.2003). Utah's reciprocal discipline rule as it currently stands does not explicitly allow for such input, nor are there means outside the rule whereby the OPC can seek sanctions based on discipline in another jurisdiction. [2] ¶ 14 Moreover, this court recognizes the importance of respecting the judgments of other disciplinary bodies. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which hears the largest number of reciprocal discipline cases, has noted that there is merit in according deference, for its own sake, to the actions of other jurisdictions with respect to the attorneys over whom we share supervisory authority. Zdravkovich, 831 A.2d at 970. We have adopted a similar policy of consistency. See Utah Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 1.3(c) (These standards are designed ... to promote ... consistency in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions for the same or similar offenses within and among jurisdictions.); In re Babilis, 951 P.2d 207, 212 (Utah 1997) (Inconsistent sanctions, either within a jurisdiction or among jurisdictions, cast doubt on the efficiency and the basic fairness of all disciplinary systems.). Absent a modification of the rule, the OPC's suggestion of a harsher measure of discipline is unavailing. ¶ 15 Both parties have raised other arguments that are disposed of by our interpretation of Rule 22. As a result, we do not reach them.