Opinion ID: 1952405
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Respondent's Procedural Challenge

Text: Respondent claims he was denied due process in this jurisdiction because he was not fairly notified that a greater sanction could result from the reciprocal discipline proceeding. He states that he reasonably believed that identical discipline would be imposed against him based upon the amended language in Rule XI § 11 and the Bar Counsel's recommendation for identical reciprocal discipline. [9] Although the Board contends that respondent had no reason to believe that identical discipline would be imposed in his case, the amendments to Rule XI § 11(c) coupled with the particular circumstances of this case suggest otherwise. We have recognized that, in general, the amended rule strongly supports the presumption that the same reciprocal discipline should be imposed. In re Zilberberg, 612 A.2d 832, 834 (D.C.1992). This presumption derives in part from the fact that another jurisdiction has already afforded the attorney a disciplinary procedure that includes notice, an opportunity to be heard, sufficient proof of misconduct, and a determined sanction. [Thus,] there is no need for a de novo repetition of the entire process.... In re Velasquez, 507 A.2d 145, 147 (D.C.1986) (per curiam). Furthermore, the presumption of imposing the same reciprocal discipline also comports with our notion of granting due deference ... to the opinions and actions of a sister jurisdiction with respect to attorneys over whom we share supervisory authority. Id. [10] We also observe that the present rule omits Bar Counsel as one of the formal participants who can challenge the imposition of identical reciprocal discipline. [11] Moreover, the rule places a clear and convincing evidence burden upon the attorney to show why the same reciprocal discipline is not warranted. Thus, the combination of these amendments demonstrates a conscious effort by the drafters to presume similar reciprocal discipline should be imposed unless the circumstances warrant a different result. We acknowledge that in Zilberberg, we relied only upon the record from the foreign jurisdiction in determining whether the misconduct warrants substantially different discipline in the District. This becomes of particular significance in light of the fact that this record comes to us as a consequence of a negotiated settlement. Given the presumption in favor of identical discipline, the form of the show cause order that was issued by this court, the fact that Bar Counsel supported identical discipline, the Board's correspondence to respondent regarding Bar Counsel's recommendation, the wording of the present rule, and the nature of the foreign jurisdiction's record, we conclude that, now with knowledge that the Board may recommend an increased sanction as well as identical discipline or a lesser sanction, [12] respondent is entitled, as a matter of fairness, to a renewed opportunity to respond to the show cause order and to the letter from the Board in accordance with the applicable rules of this Court and of the Board, and to further consideration by the Board of the appropriate course of action and recommendation in light thereof. [13] Accordingly, we remand this case to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. So Ordered.