Opinion ID: 1247192
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Prejudice in Subsequent Proceedings

Text: Petitioner also contends, albeit briefly and without citation of any authority, that the speed with which the involuntary inactive enrollment proceeding is completed creates a likelihood of prejudice to the attorney's defense in any subsequent disciplinary proceeding. He does not specify how this prejudice might arise, but simply contends in conclusory fashion that this manner of proceeding fails to comport with due process. We disagree. Any subsequent disciplinary proceedings are just that  subsequent, and separate, proceedings. Neither the involuntary inactive enrollment order itself nor any of the findings made in those proceedings is binding or has any probative value in the formal disciplinary case. [6] The rules are different, as the attorney is entitled to the full range of discovery procedures and has greater opportunity to prepare a substantive defense to the charges; the hearing panel is different; and any final disciplinary order is subject to review not only by the Review Department of the State Bar Court but by this court as well before it takes effect. We can see no potential for prejudice.