South Dakota Codified Laws 16-19-74. Imposition of identical reciprocal discipline–Grounds for other disposition
The Supreme Court shall impose the identical discipline imposed in another jurisdiction unless the board or the attorney demonstrates and the Supreme Court finds that on the record upon which the discipline is predicated, it clearly appears:
(1) That the procedure was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process; or
Terms Used In South Dakota Codified Laws 16-19-74
- Jurisdiction: (1) The legal authority of a court to hear and decide a case. Concurrent jurisdiction exists when two courts have simultaneous responsibility for the same case. (2) The geographic area over which the court has authority to decide cases.
(2) That there was such an infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct that the Supreme Court could not, consistent with its duty, accept as final the conclusion on that subject; or
(3) That the misconduct established warrants substantially different discipline in this state; or
(4) That the attorney’s conduct subject of discipline in another jurisdiction has been or is currently under investigation by the board.
Where the Supreme Court determines that any of said elements exist, the Supreme Court shall enter such other order as it deems appropriate.
Source: Supreme Court Rule 19, 1939; SDC 1939 & Supp 1960, § 32.1211; SDCL § 16-19-4; Supreme Court Rule 78-1, Rule XII (d); SL 2006, ch 339 (Supreme Court Rule 06-65), eff. July 1, 2006; SL 2016, ch 246 (Supreme Court Rule 16-53), eff. July 1, 2016; SL 2018, ch 298 (Supreme Court Rule 18-07), eff. July 1, 2018.