In re Dickey

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals imposed reciprocal discipline on an attorney who had been suspended by the Supreme Court of South Carolina for two years. The court rejected the attorney’s claims that the South Carolina proceeding deprived him of due process or involved an infirmity of proof, concluding that he had not met his burden under D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 11(c). The court ordered a two-year suspension, nunc pro tunc to January 23, 2013, with reinstatement conditioned on proof of fitness.

Holdings

1. Respondent failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the South Carolina proceeding lacked adequate notice or opportunity to be heard.
2. Respondent failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the South Carolina findings of misconduct rested on an infirmity of proof.
3. The court imposed a two-year suspension from the practice of law in the District of Columbia, nunc pro tunc to January 23, 2013, with reinstatement conditioned on proof of fitness to resume practice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether respondent established by clear and convincing evidence that the South Carolina disciplinary proceeding denied him due process.
2. Whether respondent established by clear and convincing evidence that the South Carolina proceeding suffered from an infirmity of proof.
3. Whether the District of Columbia Court of Appeals should impose reciprocal discipline identical to the two-year suspension imposed by South Carolina.

Disposition

other