Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Why Not Reciprocal?

The Maryland Court of Appeals disbarred an attorney convicted of felony immigration fraud. The attorney also was admitted in New York, where the Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department had imposed a one-year suspension.

A dissent questions why reciprocal discipline based on the final order in New York was not considered. New York had "acted first" and imposed a sanction over a year ago. Under reciprocal discipline principles, the same sanction is imposed unless there is clear and convincing evidence that a different sanction is warranted. The case that the dissent cites at page three is one I handled where Maryland concluded D.C. (i.e. me) was too light on sanction. Under the circumstances here, the dissent would impose indefinite suspension rather than disbarment. (Mike Frisch)


Bar Discipline & Process | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why Not Reciprocal?:


Post a comment