Local Rule Attorney Rule 8: DISCIPLINE IMPOSED BY OTHER COURTS

RULE 8. DISCIPLINE IMPOSED BY OTHER COURTS

(a) An attorney admitted to practice before this Court shall, upon being subjected to reprimand, discipline, suspension, or disbarment by a court of any state, territory, commonwealth, or possession of the United States, or by any other court of the United States or the District of Columbia, shall promptly inform the Clerk of the Court of such action.

(b) Upon the filing of a certified copy of a judgment or order demonstrating that an attorney admitted to practice before this Court has been disciplined by another court as described above, this Court may refer the matter to the Committee for a recommendation for appropriate action, or may issue a notice directed to the attorney containing:

(1) A copy of the judgment or order from the other court, and

(2) An order to show cause directing that the attorney inform this Court, within thirty (30) days after service of the order to show cause of any claim by the attorney predicated upon the grounds set forth in subsection (e), infra, that the imposition of identical discipline by the Court would be unwarranted and the reasons therefor.

(c) In the event that the discipline imposed in the other jurisdiction has been stayed there, any reciprocal disciplinary proceedings instituted or discipline imposed in this Court shall be deferred until such stay expires.

(d) After consideration of the response called for by the order issued pursuant to subsection B, supra, or after expiration of the time specified in that order, the Court may impose the identical discipline or may impose any other sanction the Court may deem appropriate.

(e) A final adjudication in another court that an attorney has been guilty of misconduct shall establish conclusively the misconduct for purpose of a disciplinary proceeding in this Court, unless the attorney demonstrates and the Court is satisfied that upon the face of the record upon which the discipline in another jurisdiction is predicated it clearly appears that:

(1) the procedure in that other jurisdiction was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process; or

(2) there was such an infirmity of proof establishing misconduct as to give rise to the clear conviction that this Court could not, consistent with its duty, accept as final the conclusion on that subject; or

(3) the imposition of the same discipline by this Court would result in grave injustice; or

(4) the misconduct established is deemed by this Court to warrant substantially different discipline.

(f) This Court may at any stage ask the Committee to conduct disciplinary proceedings or to make recommendations to the Court for appropriate action in light of the imposition of professional discipline by another court.

Effective December 1, 1994. Amended effective April 15, 2002; April 15, 2007; April 15, 2010; December 1, 2015; December 1, 2017.