Christopher David Wiest v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, et al.

Whether a violation of due process occurs, sufficient to decline to impose any reciprocal discipline, where discipline is imposed upon an attorney by a state Supreme Court based on facts that were never charged in advance of the evidentiary hearing and contrary to this Court’s precedent in In Re Ruffalo?

Whether a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment is present, necessitating the denial of any reciprocal discipline, due to: (i) compelling an attorney, through its disciplinary process and Rules of Professional Conduct, to make potentially incriminating disclosures of already completed conduct to his client, absent any showing that the client needed the information in any decisionmaking process, and after the attorney’s representation in the underlying matter has concluded, (ii) punishing the attorney for not making the potentially incriminating disclosures; and (iii) using the attorney’s silence, which was undertaken with the advice of counsel, as the sole basis to establish a required intent element of the disciplinary charge?