res judicata bars subsequent action where "there exists an identity of issues, an identity of causes of action, identity of persons and parties to the action, and identity of quality or capacity of the parties suing or being sued."
How later courts described this case
- res judicata bars subsequent action where "there exists an identity of issues, an identity of causes of action, identity of persons and parties to the action, and identity of quality or capacity of the parties suing or being sued."
- for the proposition that neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel will apply in the absence of an identity of issues
- listing elements of res judicata
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NIGRO, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the majority that reciprocal discipline in the instant case would be a grave injustice. I write separately, however, because I do not believe that Pa.R.B.A. 203 should have been amended to create a bright line rule that prohibits attorneys who have been disbarred or suspended for disciplinary reasons in other states from applying to sit for the Pennsylvania bar exam. Historically, this Court has taken the position that the events surrounding each particular case of *219 attorney misconduct must be taken into account when determining the appropriate discipline. See Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Valentino, 556 Pa. 609 , 730 A.2d 479, 481 (1999). The amendment of Pa.R.B.A. 203 ignores this long-standing dictate in disciplinary proceedings. Furthermore, two of our neighboring states, New Jersey and Ohio, offer no opportunity for anyone who has ever been disbarred to petition for reinstatement. Consequently, decisions to disbar attorneys in those states will permanently preclude those attorneys from applying to sit for the Pennsylvania bar, or from petitioning for reinstatement to the Pennsylvania bar, regardless of the circumstances surrounding their misconduct. For these reasons, Pa.R.B.A. 203 should not, in my view, have been amended.