discipline will not be imposed where “[t]he misconduct elsewhere does not constitute misconduct in the District of Columbia.” D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(c)(5). Due Process Requirements When the Board examined Schoeneman’s misconduct, it relied on the informal summary of charges sent as a courtesy by Virginia Bar Counsel, not the complaint presented to Schoeneman in the course of the investigation in Virginia. That was an error of law. According to Schoeneman, he had not seen that informal summary at the time he resigned in Virginia; there is no contrary indication on the record. When an attorney consents to discipline in another jurisdiction, that attorney must have been apprised of the nature of the charges against him to have been afforded due process. See In re Bielec, 755 A.2d at 1024 (<HOLDING>); In re Day, 717 A.2d at 886 (holding that an
holding that a party against whom a motion for summary judgment is filed is entitled to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard holding that due process requires at a minimum an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner recognizing that the essential requisites of procedural due process are notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard holding that absent exigent circumstances the due process clause requires the government to afford notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before seizing real property subject to civil forfeiture holding that procedural due process requires adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard