should not be imposed under the exception set forth in Rule XI, § 11(c)(4) (“[t]he misconduct established warrants substantially different discipline in the District of Columbia.”). B. The Kersey Mitigation Claim In support of his argument against identical discipline, respondent first contends that he meets the standard for mitigation of sanction under this court’s decision in Kersey, supra. In this jurisdiction, the Kersey standard requires proof that “but for [respondent’s] [disabling condition], his misconduct would not have occurred.” Kersey, 520 A.2d at 327 (staying execution of disbarment and imposing five years probation where attorney proved the requisite nexus between his alcoholism and the misconduct and rehabilitation); see also In re Temple, 596 A.2d 585, 590 (D.C.1991) (<HOLDING>). Subsequently, we held that in order to invoke
holding that an exception to the fourth amendment exclusionary rule applies where the police would have obtained the evidence if no illegality had occurred holding that an agreement between the commonwealth and a provider of prescription drugs for the medicaid program does not involve the extreme dependence necessary to support a due process claim holding that a food and drug administration publication recommending how and when various drugs should be prescribed is insufficient to establish the standard of care in an action for medical injury resulting from an alleged improper prescription recognizing under alabama law that drugs manufacturer owed duty to warn about potential dangers of using prescription drug for an offlabel to patients prescribing physician by drugs manufacturer holding that the kersey rule applies in a case involving an attorneys addiction to prescription drugs legally obtained