Rule 22

Model Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement

  1. Disciplinary Counsel Duty to Obtain Order of Discipline or Disability Inactive Status from Other Jurisdiction. Upon being disciplined or transferred to disability inactive status in another jurisdiction, a lawyer admitted to practice in this jurisdiction shall promptly inform disciplinary counsel of the discipline or transfer. Upon notification from any source that a lawyer within the jurisdiction of the agency has been disciplined or transferred to disability inactive status in another jurisdiction, disciplinary counsel shall obtain a certified copy of the disciplinary order and file it with the board and with the court.
  2. Notice Served Upon Respondent. Upon receipt of a certified copy of an order demonstrating that a lawyer admitted to practice in name of jurisdiction has been disciplined or transferred to disability inactive status in another jurisdiction, the court shall forthwith issue a notice directed to the lawyer and to disciplinary counsel containing:

    (1) A copy of the order from the other jurisdiction; and
    (2) An order directing that the lawyer or disciplinary counsel inform the court, within [thirty] days from service of the notice, of any claim by the lawyer or disciplinary counsel predicated upon the grounds set forth in paragraph D, that the imposition of the identical discipline or disability inactive status in this jurisdiction would be unwarranted and the reasons for that claim.

  3. Effect of Stay in Other Jurisdiction. In the event the discipline or transfer imposed in the other jurisdiction has been stayed there, any reciprocal discipline or transfer imposed in this jurisdiction shall be deferred until the stay expires.

  4. Discipline to be Imposed. Upon the expiration of [thirty] days from service of the notice pursuant to the provisions of paragraph B, this court shall impose the identical discipline or disability inactive status unless disciplinary counsel or the lawyer demonstrates, or this court finds that it clearly appears upon the face of the record from which the discipline is predicated, that:

    (1) The procedure was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process; or
    (2) There was such infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct as to give rise to the clear conviction that the court could not, consistent with its duty, accept as final the conclusion on that subject; or
    (3) The discipline imposed would result in grave injustice or be offensive to the public policy of the jurisdiction;
    (4) The reason for the original transfer to disability inactive status no longer exists.

    If this court determines that any of those elements exists, this court shall enter such other order as it deems appropriate. The burden is on the party seeking different discipline in this jurisdiction to demonstrate that the imposition of the same discipline is not appropriate.

  5. Conclusiveness of Adjudication in Other Jurisdictions. In all other aspects, a final adjudication in another jurisdiction that a lawyer, whether or not admitted in that jurisdiction, has been guilty of misconduct or should be transferred to disability inactive status shall establish conclusively the misconduct or the disability for purposes of a disciplinary or disability proceeding in this jurisdiction.

Commentary
If a lawyer suspended or disbarred in one jurisdiction is also admitted in another jurisdiction and no action can be taken against the lawyer until a new disciplinary proceeding is instituted, tried, and concluded, the public in the second jurisdiction is left unprotected against a lawyer who has been judicially determined to be unfit. Any procedure which so exposes innocent clients to harm cannot be justified. The spectacle of a lawyer disbarred in one jurisdiction yet permitted to practice elsewhere exposes the profession to criticism and undermines public confidence in the administration of justice.

Disciplinary counsel in the forum jurisdiction should be notified by disciplinary counsel of the jurisdiction where the original discipline or disability inactive status was imposed. Upon receipt of such information, disciplinary counsel should promptly obtain and serve upon the lawyer an order to show cause why identical discipline or disability inactive status should not be imposed in the forum jurisdiction. The certified copy of the order in the original jurisdiction should be incorporated into the order to show cause.

The imposition of discipline or disability inactive status in one jurisdiction does not mean that every other jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted must necessarily impose discipline or disability inactive status. The agency has jurisdiction to recommend reciprocal discipline or disability inactive status on the basis of public discipline or disability inactive status imposed by a jurisdiction in which the respondent is licensed. The agency should consider any difference, in kind or scope, between the sanction imposed in the originating jurisdiction and the sanctions available in the forum jurisdiction.

A judicial determination of misconduct or disability by the respondent in another jurisdiction is conclusive, and not subject to relitigation in the forum state. The court should impose identical discipline or disability inactive status unless it determines, after review limited to the record of the proceedings in the foreign jurisdiction, that one of the grounds specified in paragraph D exists.This Rule applies whether or not the resondent is admitted to practice in that jurisdiction.See also Model Rule 8.5, Comment [1], Model Rules of Professional Conduct.


bulletNext - RULE 23. PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH LAWYER IS DECLARED TO BE INCOMPETENT OR ALLEGED TO BE INCAPACITATED

bulletTable of Contents

bulletCenter for Professional Responsibility

Advertisement