The opinion
OP ALA, J.,
concurring in result.
¶ 1 I cannot join the court’s pronouncement. It does not explicitly exclude from the range of permissible inquiry — at the eviden-tiary hearing to be conducted by the PRT panel — the nature and degree of Heinen’s culpability, if any there was, in the transaction for the involvement in which he was to have been disciplined in Texas just before his resignation from the Bar of that State. I would have placed Heinen’s culpability vel non clearly beyond the reach of the panel’s inquiry. Its exclusive focus should be on matters relevant to mitigation and aggravation of the discipline to be imposed. To do less than I counsel today is to invite both parties to relitigate ad nauseam Heinen’s Texas bar difficulty in a new-found forum.