Rule 251.21.Discipline Imposed by Foreign Jurisdiction 
 (a)Proof of Discipline Imposed. Except as otherwise provided by these 
 Rules, a final adjudication in another jurisdiction of misconduct 
 constituting grounds for discipline of an attorney shall, for purposes of 
 proceedings pursuant to these Rules, 
 conclusively establish such misconduct. 
  
 (b)Duty to Report Discipline Imposed. Any attorney subject to these 
 Rules against whom any form of public discipline has been imposed by 
 the authorities of 
 another jurisdiction, or who voluntarily surrenders the attorney's license 
 to practice law 
 in connection with disciplinary proceedings in another jurisdiction, shall 
 notify the 
 Regulation Counsel of such action in writing within ten days thereof. 
  
 (c)Commencement of Proceedings Upon Notice of Voluntary Surrender of 
 License.  Upon receiving notice that an attorney subject to these 
 Rules has voluntarily surrendered his license to practice law in another 
 jurisdiction, the Regulation Counsel 
 shall, following investigation pursuant to these Rules, refer the matter to the 
 committee 
 for further proceedings consistent with C.R.C.P. 251.12. 
  
 (d)Commencement of Proceedings Upon Notice of Discipline Imposed.  Upon 
 receiving notice that an attorney subject to these Rules has been 
 publicly 
 disciplined in another jurisdiction, the Regulation Counsel shall obtain the 
 disciplinary 
 order and prepare and file a complaint against the attorney as provided in 
 C.R.C.P. 
 251.14.  If the Regulation Counsel intends either to claim that substantially 
 different discipline is warranted or to present additional evidence, notice of 
 that intent shall be given in the complaint. 
  
 If the attorney intends to challenge the validity of the disciplinary order 
 entered in the foreign jurisdiction, the attorney must file with the Presiding 
 Disciplinary Judge an answer and a full copy of the record of the disciplinary 
 proceedings which resulted in the imposition of that disciplinary order within 
 twenty days after service of the complaint or such greater time as the 
 Presiding Disciplinary Judge may allow for good cause shown. 
  
 At the conclusion of proceedings brought under this Rule, the Hearing Board 
 shall issue a decision imposing the same discipline as was imposed by the 
 foreign 
 jurisdiction, unless it is determined by the Hearing Board that: 
  
 (1)The procedure followed in the foreign jurisdiction did not comport with 
 requirements of due process of law; 
  
 (2)The proof upon which the foreign jurisdiction based its determination of 
 misconduct is so infirm that the Hearing Board cannot, consistent with its 
 duty, accept as final the determination of the foreign jurisdiction; 
  
 (3)The imposition by the Hearing Board of the same discipline as was 
 imposed in the foreign jurisdiction would result in grave injustice; or 
  
 (4)The misconduct proved warrants that a substantially different form of 
 discipline be imposed by the Hearing Board. 
  
 

                                                                
ANNOTATIONSSource: 
 Amended and adopted June 25, 1998, effective January 1, 1999. 
  
  
  
 Editor's note: 
 This rule was previously numbered as 
 241.17. 
  
  
  
 Annotator's note. 
 The following annotations include cases decided under former 
 provisions similar to this rule. 
  
 Disbarment from practice in another jurisdiction warrants disbarment in 
 this state. People v. Payne, 738 P.2d 374 (Colo. 1987); People v. 
 Montano, 744 P.2d 480 (Colo. 1987); People v. Kochel, 764 P.2d 68 (Colo. 
 1988); People v. Brunn, 764 P.2d 1165 (Colo. 1988); 
 People v. Sousa, 943 P.2d 448 (Colo. 1997). 
  
 Public censure was appropriate discipline in this state for attorney 
 who received 
 public reprimand in Texas.  People v. Campbell, 932 P.2d 312 (Colo. 
 1997). 
  
 Public censure was appropriate discipline for attorney who had been reprimanded 
 in Connecticut for failure to file federal income tax return.  People v. Perkell, 969 P.2d 
 703 (Colo. 1998). 
  
 Disbarment from practice in federal court violates this rule and 
 warrants discipline.  People v. Awenius, 653 P.2d 740 (Colo. 1982). 
  
 Suspension from practice in tax court is a determination of 
 misconduct in another jurisdiction constituting grounds for discipline 
 under these rules.  People v. Hartman, 744 P.2d 482 (Colo. 1987). 
  
 Suspension from United States district court pursuant to a plea agreement 
 in that court is a determination of misconduct in another jurisdiction and 
 is grounds for suspension under these rules.  People v. Gilson, 780 P.2d 
 1088 (Colo. 1989). 
  
 Imposition of same discipline as another jurisdiction.  This rule calls 
 for imposition of the same discipline as that imposed in another jurisdiction 
 unless one of four listed exceptions has been established. 
 People v. Gilson, 780 P.2d 1088 (Colo. 1989); 
 People v. Breingan, 820 P.2d 1115 (Colo. 1991); 
 People v. Mattox, 862 P.2d 276 (Colo. 1993); 
 People v. Bengert, 885 P.2d 241 (Colo. 1994); 
 People v. Calder, 897 P.2d 831 (Colo. 1995); 
 People v. Cohan, 913 P.2d 523 (Colo. 1996); 
 People v. Campbell, 932 P.2d 312 (Colo. 1997); 
 People v. Rodriguez, 937 P.2d 1210 (Colo. 1997). 
  
 Where the thrust of the respondent's defense was that the proof upon which 
 the foreign state's findings of misconduct were based was infirm, and a 
 determination in the respondent's favor would require the hearing board to 
 reweigh the credibility of the witnesses at the out-of-state hearing, board 
 acted properly in declining to do so. People v. Calder, 897 P.2d 831 (Colo. 
 1995). 
  
 Where the thrust of the respondent's defense was that the proof upon 
 which the Tenth 
 Circuit Court of Appeals based its finding of misconduct was impermissibly 
 infirm, and a 
 determination in the respondent's favor would require the disciplinary 
 panel to revisit 
 issues that had been conclusively determined in a prior proceeding, the 
 panel acted 
 properly in declining to do so. People v. Smith, 937 P.2d 724 (Colo. 1997). 
  
 Although infirmity of proof is a basis on which to challenge 
 disciplinary action by a 
 foreign jurisdiction, it does not apply to the findings and recommendations 
 of a hearing 
 board and the supreme court grievance committee panel.  People v. Smith, 
 937 P.2d 724 
 (Colo. 1997). 
  
 Multiple due-process challenges to procedure followed by federal 
 appeals court 
 were rejected in People v. Smith, 937 P.2d 724 (Colo. 1997). 
  
 Respondent was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the question of 
 whether 
 motions he had filed in a prior case were frivolous.  People v. Smith, 937 
 P.2d 724 (Colo. 
 1997). 
  
 Sixth amendment rights to jury trial and speedy trial do not attach in 
 discipline cases, 
 since by its terms the sixth amendment only applies in criminal cases. 
 People v. Smith, 
 937 P.2d 724 (Colo. 1997). 
  
 Fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination did not operate to 
 preclude 
 respondent from being compelled to attend his own deposition.  People v. 
 Smith, 937 
 P.2d 724 (Colo. 1997). 
  
 Nine-month period of suspension recommended by the board and accepted by 
 the 
 hearing panel was not more severe than the indefinite suspension imposed by 
 the tenth 
 circuit court of appeals, hence respondent could not challenge suspension 
 on this basis. 
 People v. Smith, 937 P.2d 724 (Colo. 1997). 
  
 No due-process violation where presiding officer of the board also 
 served on the 
 hearing panel that reviews the board's action. People v. Fitzgibbons, 909 
 P.2d 1098 
 (Colo. 1996); People v. Smith, 937 P.2d 724 (Colo. 1997). 
  
 Failure to report suspension from the practice of law and felony 
 conviction in another state justifies disbarment.  People v. Hedicke, 785 
 P.2d 918 (Colo. 1990). 
  
 Failure to disclose prior discipline in Kentucky, Colorado, and U.S. 
 district court for district of Colorado to the U.S. district court for the 
 district of Nevada warranted suspension from the practice of law for one 
 year.  People v. Mattox, 862 P.2d 276 (Colo. 1993). 
  
 Virginia disciplinary proceedings provided defendant with due process. 
 Imposition of same discipline, in this case, disbarment, in Colorado customary. 
 People v. Williams, 892 P.2d 885 (Colo. 1995). 
  
 Discipline in foreign jurisdiction for sharing legal fees and forming a 
 partnership with a nonlawyer and for failing to deposit client funds in 
 required interest-bearing account was suspension for two years, with the 
 period of suspension stayed, and three years of probation on condition that the 
 respondent be actually suspended for six months.  Colorado law does not provide 
 for the conditional suspension of a period of suspension or for probation, but 
 a period of suspension of one year and one day ensures that the respondent has 
 complied with the conditions of the foreign state suspension.  People v. 
 Bengert, 885 P.2d 241 (Colo. 1994). 
  
 Attorney received suspension for charging excessive fee in another 
 state. 
 The action taken in the other state had resulted in the attorney's receipt of 
 a one-year conditional suspension.  Usually the court will impose the same 
 discipline as that which was imposed in the foreign jurisdiction, but because 
 Colorado does not provide for conditional suspensions public censure was 
 deemed appropriate.  People v. Nash, 873 P.2d 764 (Colo. 1994). 
  
 Applied in People v. Swope, 621 P.2d 321 (Colo. 1981); People v. 
 Miller, 744 P.2d 489 (Colo. 1987); 
 People v. Trevino, 803 P.2d 473 (Colo. 1990).