Court Opinion

ID: 9620327
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:40:59.277629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:13.450676
License: Public Domain

*390Judge Orr
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
While I do not disagree with the analysis employed by the majority as it applies to the issues dealing with pre-deprivation hearings and a meaningful post-deprivation hearing, I find the Rule at issue in this case constitutionally infirm in one respect. Although there is a post-deprivation process by which an attorney can have his or her license reinstated, there is no provision or procedure to determine if the initial unilateral action of suspension was in fact appropriate. A post-deprivation hearing that merely reinstates a suspended license, upon a finding that at the time of the hearing the attorney involved is not impaired, provides no meaningful opportunity to contest the results of the original process and the resulting suspension. There should at a minimum be.an opportunity for the affected party to challenge the initial action and the resulting suspension. For this reason, I concur in part and dissent in part.