I think Mike brought up a good point about burden of proof: If you are stripping someone of their ability to practice, you shouldnt be able to use a preclusive finding from a civil case. While the bar revocation isnt a criminal proceeding, it still being stripped of a right to practice law.
Should Donziger be saying that the state review board is using Kaplan's opinion without giving him the opportunity to confront Kaplan? Because didn't he confront Kaplan when he appealed to the 2d circuit?
I dont think that it's fair to preclude Donzinger from re-litigating the issue that was found previously in a CIVIL case- that wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt so not letting that be determined again doesn't make sense to me
If the theory is that collateral estoppel is inadmissible hearsay, wouldnt this be in conflict with the full faith and credit clause? Any time a court accepts a factual or legal finding by another court, they are accepting an out of court statement made by another court. However, that is a fundamental presumption of the full faith and credit clause