RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE AND
RECIPROCAL INCAPACITY INACTIVE STATUS
(a) Lawyers Disciplined or Transferred to Incapacity Inactive Status in Another Jurisdiction. Upon being disciplined or transferred to incapacity inactive status in another jurisdiction, a lawyer admitted to practice in this state shall promptly inform disciplinary counsel of the discipline or transfer. Upon notification from any source that a lawyer within the jurisdiction of the Commission has been disciplined or transferred to incapacity inactive status in another jurisdiction, disciplinary counsel shall obtain a certified copy of the disciplinary order and file it with the Commission and the Supreme Court.
(b) Notice to Lawyer and Disciplinary Counsel. Upon receipt of a certified copy of an order demonstrating that a lawyer admitted to practice in this state has been disciplined or transferred to incapacity inactive status in another jurisdiction, the Supreme Court shall issue a notice to the lawyer and disciplinary counsel:
(1) Containing a copy of the order from the other jurisdiction; and
(2) Directing that the lawyer or disciplinary counsel inform the Supreme Court, within 30 days from service of the notice, of any claim by the lawyer or disciplinary counsel predicated upon the grounds set forth in (d) below, that the imposition of the identical discipline or transfer to incapacity inactive status in this state would be unwarranted and the reasons for that claim.
(c) 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 state shall be deferred until the stay expires.
(d) Discipline to Be Imposed. Upon the expiration of the time provided by (b)(2) above, the Supreme Court shall impose the identical discipline or incapacity inactive status unless the lawyer or disciplinary counsel demonstrates, or the Supreme 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;
(2) There was such infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct as to give rise to the clear conviction that the Supreme Court could not, consistent with its duty, accept as final the conclusion on that subject;
(3) The imposition of the same discipline by the Supreme Court would result in grave injustice;
(4) The misconduct established warrants substantially different discipline in this state; or
(5) The reason for the original transfer to incapacity inactive status no longer exists.
If the Supreme Court determines that any of those elements exist, it 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.
(e) Conclusiveness of Adjudication in Other Jurisdictions. In all other aspects, a final adjudication in another jurisdiction that a lawyer has been guilty of misconduct or should be transferred to incapacity inactive status shall establish conclusively the misconduct or the incapacity for purposes of a disciplinary or incapacity proceeding in this state.