has already made its determination. And although the attorney may file an exception or appeal to this court, he or she is then laboring under the burden of showing that the "determination or recommendation of the screening panel is unsupported by substantial evidence or is arbitrary, capricious, legally insufficient, or otherwise clearly erroneous." Id. 14-510(d)(8). 1 27 The possibility of new charges arising during a sereening panel hearing raises doubts as to the structure of the appeal procedures within our Rules. Requiring an accused lawyer to either request a hearing at the exception stage or pursue an appeal to this court in order to present evidence responsive to charges raised during a sereening panel hearing is wholly inefficient. See Long, 2011 UT 32, ¶ 36, 256 P.3d 206 (<HOLDING>). 128 Mr. Johnson's case demonstrates this
holding that this court could enjoin litigation in another court if doing so would promote settlement of disputes in these bankruptcy cases holding that vague and ambiguous charges in another jurisdiction cannot form the basis for reciprocal discipline in a manner consistent with due process requirements even if the attorney consented to that discipline recognizing due process right to notice and informal hearing in school disciplinary process recognizing right of this court to regulate and discipline members of the bar recognizing that the informal screening panel system was designed to promote speed and efficiency in lowlevel attorney discipline cases