Opinion ID: 2525369
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Additional Mitigating Factor Raised by The Trial Panel

Text: ¶ 27 The trial panel in its report points out that the Tenth Circuit's order suspending respondent in 1994 failed to designate the length of respondent's suspension. This omission, says the trial panel, made it impossible for respondent to know how to comply with the Tenth Circuit's rule on reinstatement, which ties the appropriate procedure to the length of a suspension. [21] We would point out that respondent's problem was not that he mistakenly used the wrong procedure or that he did not know which procedure to use. His problem  and the reason he is before us today  is that he deliberately chose not to follow any procedure. Rather, he resumed practice without complying with even the minimal procedure applicable to a suspension of six months or less. We hence do not believe that the Tenth Circuit's omission of the length of respondent's suspension has any relevance to our evaluation of his misconduct. C.