holding that a record must be augmented, ordinarily by a de novo hearing before the Hearing Committee, where an existing record from an original disciplining jurisdiction is insufficient for establishing a greater sanction is warranted
How later courts described this case
- holding that a record must be augmented, ordinarily by a de novo hearing before the Hearing Committee, where an existing record from an original disciplining jurisdiction is insufficient for establishing a greater sanction is warranted
- recognizing a rebuttable presumption that the sanction imposed by this court in a reciprocal proceeding should be identical to that imposed by the original disciplining court
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
STEADMAN, Associate Judge,
dissenting in part:
I agree with much of Judge Terry’s analysis, but take issue with the disposition. Here, the Virginia conduct may or may not have been such as to “warrant substantially different discipline in the District of Columbia.” One cannot tell with assurance from the facts related in the Virginia Board’s findings, but the Board’s perception that such might well be the case does not seem unwarranted. Accordingly, I would remand to the Board for further factual inquiry. I do not think that the presumption in favor of reciprocal discipline is so compelling that it applies even where the other jurisdiction’s proceedings leave significant doubt as to the extent of the attorney’s wrongful conduct.