The Reciprocal Discipline Notice Problem
Attorney Dana Whitfield was admitted in Arizona in 2011 and has practiced in Phoenix since, maintaining an active license and paying bar dues annually. In March 2024 the Oregon State Bar suspended her Oregon license for 90 days after she missed two filing deadlines in a client matter there, where she had been admitted pro hac vice. Whitfield did not report the Oregon suspension to the State Bar of Arizona. In November 2024 she received a client complaint in Arizona alleging neglect of a different matter. While investigating that complaint, bar counsel discovered the Oregon suspension. Whitfield tells bar counsel she believed the Oregon matter was a minor administrative lapse, that she never practiced in Oregon after the suspension, and that she did not think a pro hac vice suspension counted as discipline requiring self-reporting. Her Arizona practice has continued without interruption.
1. Does Whitfield's failure to self-report the Oregon suspension itself constitute a separate violation, and what is the controlling framework?
Read the worked answer
Yes, on these facts it very likely does. Arizona's reciprocal discipline rules require a lawyer admitted in Arizona to notify the State Bar within a defined short window (generally on the order of a month) after being disciplined in another jurisdiction, and to provide the relevant documents. The duty is triggered by the imposition of discipline elsewhere, not by the lawyer's own characterization of its severity. Whitfield's belief that a pro hac vice suspension is too minor to report is not a defense to the reporting duty; at most it is mitigation relevant to sanction. Two distinct obligations arise: (1) the affirmative self-report, which she breached; and (2) the Bar's independent authority to pursue reciprocal discipline, which does not depend on her report because the Bar can learn of the foreign order through other channels, as happened here. The reporting violation is separate from, and survives even if, the underlying Oregon misconduct would have drawn no Arizona sanction.
2. If Arizona initiates reciprocal discipline, what showing would Whitfield need to avoid the same 90-day suspension, and how should the pending neglect complaint be handled?
Read the worked answer
In reciprocal discipline, the foreign jurisdiction's findings generally come to Arizona with a strong presumption of correctness, and the lawyer bears the burden to show one of a narrow set of exceptions: that the procedure in the foreign jurisdiction was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to be a deprivation of due process, that there was an infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct, that the misconduct would not warrant discipline in Arizona, or that imposing the same discipline would result in grave injustice. Whitfield's best argument is the third: that a 90-day suspension for two missed deadlines would not be imposed in Arizona absent aggravating factors. She would need to marshal Arizona precedent on comparable neglect cases. The pending Arizona neglect complaint should be resolved in the same proceeding or a coordinated one, because a pattern of similar neglect across two states is powerful aggravation and may justify a suspension longer than Oregon's. Counsel should advise against treating the two matters as unrelated.