Hampshire disbarment. However, he continues to pay his annual registration fee and is currently licensed to practice law in Minnesota. Having learned of Otis’s disbarment in New Hampshire, the Director now requests that we impose reciprocal discipline. Rule 12(d), RLPR, which governs reciprocal discipline, provides: [Following an order to show cause] this Court may thereafter impose the identical discipline unless it appears that discipline procedures in the other jurisdiction were unfair, or the imposition of the same discipline would be unjust or substantially different from discipline warranted in Minnesota. Otis does not contend that New Hampshire’s discipline procedures were unfair or that they did not afford him due process. See, e.g., In re Koss, 572 N.W.2d 276, 277 (Minn.1997) (<HOLDING>). Rather, Otis essentially argues that imposing
holding that in reciprocal discipline cases disciplinary procedures in the other state must meet minnesotas due process requirements recognizing due process right to notice and informal hearing in school disciplinary process holding that lack of notice of charges in disciplinary proceedings violates the due process clause 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 holding that due process requires that the findings and actions of a disciplinary prison board be supported by some evidence in the record