Full opinion text
OPINION AND ORDER FUSTE, District Judge. On June 23, 2000, Carlos Romero-Bar-celó (“Petitioner Romero-Barceló”), filed a motion requesting disbarment of Aníbal Acevedo-Vilá (“Respondent Acevedo-Vilá”). After evidentiary and formal disciplinary hearings, a Panel (“Panel”) appointed by this court rendered its Report and Recommendation (“Report”) on April 16, 2003. Docket Document No. 67. The Panel recommended that Respondent be publicly reprimanded for violations of Rule 8.4 and 3.1 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent Acevedo-Vilá opposed the Report, raising objections to the proceedings and the Report’s conclusions. Docket Document 70. After a careful review of the entire record, we recommend that the district judges of this court issue a public reprimand. Duty compels us to adjudicate this legal dispute brought by two attorneys who happen to be political rivals. We note with disillusion and dismay the depths to which public discourse has fallen, and we hope, though indications are to the contrary, that this court is seldom, if ever, used to resolve matters that are best left to other arenas. That said, we will not shirk our responsibility to enforce the highest standards of ethical conduct for any individual who wishes to practice before this Federal District Court. It is a fair characterization of the lawyer’s responsibility in our society that he stands “as a shield,” ... in defense of right and to ward off wrong. From a profession charged with such responsibilities there must be exacted those qualities of truth-speaking, of a high sense of honor, of granite discretion, of the strictest observance of fiduciary responsibility, that have, throughout the centuries, been compendiously described as “moral character.” Schware v. Bd. of Bar Exam’s, 353 U.S. 232, 247, 77 S.Ct. 752, 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). We have addressed the issues before us with Justice Frankfurter’s words in mind, in order, not to play party politics, but to preserve the integrity of the Bar. We strongly urge the other judges of the court to adopt a similar stance, so that the message can be sent loud and clear. Unethical conduct will not be tolerated, no matter how it arises, or who is involved. I. Factual and Procedural Synopsis To review the origins of this matter, we largely reiterate the Panel’s factual synopsis, expounding where appropriate. See Docket Document 63. In June 2000, Petitioner Romero-Barce-ló filed a petition for disbarment. At the time, Respondent Acevedo-Vilá was the minority leader of the Popular Democratic Party’s (“PDP”) delegation in the Puerto Rico House of Representatives. He was also a candidate in the November 2000 elections for the federal position of Resident Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in the United States House of Representatives, a position which he subsequently secured. Complainant Romero-Barceló opposed . Respondent Acevedo-Vilá in these elections as the incumbent Resident Commissioner, representing the New Progressive Party (“NPP”). Both men were, and are, attorneys-at-law in Puerto Rico and members of the Bar of the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Respondent Acevedo-Vilá has been an attorney since 1985 and was a member of the Puerto Rico House of Representatives from 1992 through 2000. Beginning in 1997, as Speaker for the Minority at the House of Representatives, Respondent Acevedo-Vilá became actively involved in monitoring governmental action related to the implementation of the Puerto Rico Health Reform Act, Law 190 (“Law 190”). Aot To Regulate The GoveRnment Health Installations Pkivatization Peocess, 1996 P.R. Laws 190. Law 190 granted the Puerto Rico Department of Health and the Government Development Bank (“GDB”) the authority to design, establish, and carry out the procedures and provisions for the sale of Diagnostic and Treatment Centers (“DTC”) to private entities. While Respondent Acevedo-Vilá knew that the Health Department and the GDB were legally authorized and empowered to conduct and control the privatization process and sale of the DTCs, Respondent was concerned that several DTCs had been sold for a price either below the amount of public debt held by the DTC, or below their appraisal/market value. Respondent exchanged communications with the Puerto Rico Comptroller, Manuel Diaz Saldaña (“Comptroller Diaz Saldaña”), and other government representatives, and made public his disagreement with the process of privatization of the DTCs. Sometime during the month of September 1999, Respondent Acevedo-Vilá received three sworn statements, dated August 27, 28, and 80, 1999 (“Sworn Statements”), by Andrés Sánchez-Delga-do (“Sánchez-Delgado”). The statements were made as part of Sánchez-Delgado’s efforts to file a civil action against his employer, Dr. Carlos Juan Rodriguez Mateo, a politician affiliated with the NPP and a prominent physician, alleging wrongful termination of employment and sexual harassment. Sánchez-Delgado narrated in detail a series of events, of which he claimed to have personal knowledge, involving Petitioner Romero-Barce-ló. Specifically, Sánchez-Delgado alleged that he delivered $175,000 to one of Romero-Barceló’s personal aides, Mr. Domingo Garcia (“Domingo Garcia”). According to the August 27 and 28 statements, the delivery took place at a political activity being held in Guayama, Puer-to Rico, in connection with a December 1998 plebiscite. Sánchez-Delgado averred that the $175,000 belonged to Dr. Rodriguez Mateo, and that the money was a “gift” for Romero-Barceló in exchange for his alleged assistance and/or intervention in favor of Dr. Rodriguez-Mateo’s acquisition of a DTC in Salinas, Puerto Rico (“Salinas DTC”). Petitioner’s alleged intervention was to be on behalf of a corporation called Med-Sur, of which Dr. Rodriguez Mateo is an officer, and to which the bid for the Salinas DTC was eventually awarded. Respondent Acevedo-Vilá and his assistant, Attorney Carlos Ruiz (“Attorney Ruiz”), assert that Sánchez-Delgado’s sworn statements were thoroughly examined and analyzed by Respondent Acevedo-Vilá and his assistants, and that Respondent’s assistants compiled public documents related to the sale of the Salinas DTC and any political contributions made to Romero-Barceló by Dr. Rodriguez Mateo or persons related to him. Both Attorney Ruiz and Respondent Acevedo-Vilá were able to confirm certain facts alleged by Sánchez-Delgado in his Sworn Statements including, inter alia, that Petitioner Romero-Barceló had contacted the GDB during the bidding process, that the Salinas DTC was sold for less than the appraisal value, and that the father of Dr. Rodriguez Mateo was a member of Petitioner Romero-Barceló’s security escort. On or around September 27, 1999, Respondent Acevedo-Vilá held a news conference denouncing the sale of the Salinas DTC at 48% of its book value of $2,379,987 and 55.5% of the $2,073,134 debt that the Puerto Rico Health Department had with government bondholders. Respondent Acevedo-Vilá requested that the GDB investigate the statements made by Sán-chez-Delgado regarding Petitioner’s alleged intervention on behalf of Med-Sur in the acquisition of the Salinas DTC. Respondent Acevedo-Vilá also issued a press release, in which he suggested that the information provided by Sánchez-Delgado, along with that reflected in documents disclosed by the GDB “raised serious questions about the sale of the Salinas DTC.” Respondent Acevedo-Vilá also noted that the DTC was sold during a year in which a plebiscite was held in Puerto Rico, and suggested the possibility of an NPP scheme to promote the sale of DTCs below market price in exchange for diverting funds to the NPP campaign. Petitioner Romero-Barceló denied Sán-chez-Delgado’s statements, and countered that he did not remember talking to Dr. Rodríguez-Mateo about the Salinas DTC. His assistant, Domingo Garcia, acknowledged that he had talked to Dr. Rodrí-guez-Mateo about the purchase of the Salinas DTC, and also admitted that he called the GDB inquiring on the status of the transaction. During the same time period, members of the PDP, Respondent Acevedo-Vilá’s political party, were denouncing prior attempts by Sánchez-Delgado to offer false testimony against PDP leaders and warning others about Sánchez-Delgado’s lack of credibility. Respondent Acevedo-Vilá attempted to determine whether Sánchez-Delgado’s testimony was credible by contacting Attorney David Noriega, a political analyst who interviewed Sánchez-Delgado at a radio talk show. Attorney Noriega’s opinion was that Sánchez-Delgado appeared to be credible and knowledgeable of facts regarding personal and family activities of Dr. Rodríguez-Mateo. Respondent Acevedo-Vilá, however, could not confirm that this conversation about Sanchez-Delgado’s credibility happened before he filed the complaint with the Federal Elections Commission (“FEC”) that gave rise to this matter. A flurry of press releases by Respondent Acevedo-Vilá followed. On September 30, 1999, Respondent distributed a press release, calling upon Petitioner Romero-Barceló to explain, inter alia, his “connections with Dr. Carlos Rodriguez Mateo, whom it is alleged made an illegal contribution of $175,000 to [Romero-Barceló’s] re-election campaign ...” On October 6, 1999, Respondent Acevedo-Vilá issued another press release requesting that Comptroller Diaz Saldaña investigate the sale of DTCs sold below appraisal value, which he asserted could be indicative of a generalized scheme of illegal contributions. On the same date, the local newspaper EL NUEVO DIA reported that Comptroller Diaz Saldaña had agreed to examine Sán-chez-Delgado’s sworn statements to determine the legality of the DTC sale process. On October 7, 1999, Respondent Acevedo-Vilá held a press conference announcing that he was filing a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”), alleging that Petitioner Romero-Barceló violated the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, 2 U.S.C. §§ 431-56 (1994). In a press release on the same day, Respondent Acevedo-Vilá avers that he was prompted to file the complaint with the FEC because of the state government’s alleged continued refusal to investigate Sánchez-Delgado’s statements regarding an illegal contribution to Romero-Barceló’s political campaign. The FEC complaint alleged that Petitioner Romero-Barceló received an illegal campaign contribution of $175,000 from Sánehez-Delgado. The complaint also maintained that Sánehez-Delgado, pursuant to orders given by his employer, gave the money directly to Domingo Garcia, Director of former Resident Commissioner Romero-Barceló’s District Office in Puerto Rico, for Petitioner Romero-Barceló’s election campaign. The FEC complaint further asserted that Dr. Rodríguez-Ma-teo made the contribution in exchange for Petitioner’s assistance in Dr. Rodriguez-Mateo’s acquisition of a medical institution in Salinas, Puerto Rico, for a price below the Government of Puerto Rico’s selling price. On October 15, 1999, Comptroller Diaz Saldaña publicly stated that he was investigating the sale of the Salinas DTC and other hospitals, and that he intended to interview Dr. Rodríguez-Mateo and Sán-chez-Delgado. On October 19, 1999, the FEC acknowledged the receipt of the Request for Investigation against Romero-Barceló. The letter advised Respondent Acevedo-Vilá that any additional information regarding the matter should be forwarded to the Office of the General Counsel of the FEC. By letter dated January 13, 2000, Respondent Acevedo-Vilá supplemented his FEC complaint by submitting additional information that he alleged related to the facts presented in the original complaint. Attached to the letter were two January 5, 2000 newspaper articles, one published by El Nuevo Día, and the other presumably published by a local English language newspaper, The San Juan Star. In the letter, Respondent Acevedo-Vilá alleges that these articles “depict an ongoing probe, by the U.S. District Attorney’s Office [sic] for the District of Puerto Rico, the FBI and the U.S. Postal Service on possible conduct related to ‘the events described in my complaint.’ ” Both articles, however, relate that Sánehez-Delgado was questioned about allegations that Med-Sur had allegedly defrauded Humana Insurance of $15 Million. The only details that bear any reference to the FEC complaint are in The San Juan Star article, which gives background details on Sánchez-Del-gado and also reports that Sánchez-Delga-do had received death threats because of the civil suit he filed against Rodríguez-Mateo. On March 29, 2000, a radio news station, NOTI-UNO, broadcasted a March 16, 2000 recorded statement made by Sán-ehez-Delgado, in which he recanted the sworn statements he had made in August of 1999. In the recording, Sánchez-Delga-do stated that his original statements against Romero-Barceló were false, and were made because he was upset with Dr. Rodríguez-Mateo. He also alleged, inter alia, that he was paid to make the statements against Romero-Barceló by his attorney, former NPP senator Nicolás No-gueras, PDP Representative Guillermo Valero, and Respondent Acevedo-Vilá. Subsequently, on March 24, 2000, he recanted the March 16, 2000 statement, averring that he was threatened by NPP sympathetic employees of the Municipality of Bayamón to state that Respondent Acevedo-Vilá had prompted him to lie in the original sworn statements that formed part of the FEC complaint. On March 30, 2000, Respondent Acevedo-Vilá was interviewed at a NOTI-UNO radio show. During the interview, the NOTI-UNO reporter asked Respondent Acevedo-Vilá about Sánchez-Delgado’s credibility in light of the March 16 and March 24 statements. Respondent Acevedo-Vilá expressed that Sánchez Delgado lacked credibility and that, in light of these contradictions, Sánchez-Delgado would not make a good witness. On May 18, 2000, the newspaper El Vocero began publishing a two-week series of investigative reports in which it recounted a scheme which Respondent allegedly masterminded. The scheme purportedly involved payments of money to an attorney who would then ensure that libelous claims against Petitioner Romero-Barceló were made public. On June 1, 2000, Petitioner Romero-Barceló asked Respondent Acevedo-Vilá, publicly and in writing, to withdraw his complaint with the FEC, inasmuch as the same was based on the statements by Sán-chez Delgado. Petitioner alluded to Sán-chez-Delgado’s accusations implicating Respondent Acevedo-Vilá in a scheme to defame him. Petitioner Romero-Barceló alerted Respondent Acevedo-Vilá that inaction would result in legal action. On the same date, Respondent Acevedo-Vilá forwarded the letter to the FEC, claiming that “[Romero-Barceló’s] conduct [was] highly irregular, if not illegal” because Romero-Barceló “threatened” to take legal action. Respondent Acevedo-Vilá requested that Romero-Barceló’s letter be included as an additional document related to his complaint. Respondent Acevedo-Vilá also attached an affidavit, where he emphatically denied Sánchez-Delgado’s accusations and denied having any participation in a scheme to defraud Romero-Barceló. Respondent Acevedo-Vilá made no reference to Sánchez-Delga-do’s March 16 and 24 disavowals of the sworn statements that constituted the evidence for the complaint as originally filed. On June 23, 2000, Petitioner Romero-Barceló filed the instant petition, alleging that Sánchez-Delgado’s sworn statements, which formed the foundation of the FEC complaint, were internally inconsistent. Docket Document No. 1. As such, he maintained that it was incumbent upon Respondent Acevedo-Vilá to take affirmative steps to verify the allegations before filing the FEC complaint and publicizing its allegations. Petitioner Romero-Barceló further alleged that Respondent Acevedo-Vilá, by publicly decrying the credibility of Sánehez-Delgado, irreparably undermined the basis of the FEC complaint, and that Respondent Acevedo-Vilá adamantly insisted upon pursuing the issue solely for the purpose of harassment. Accordingly, Petitioner Romero-Barceló contended that Respondent Acevedo-Vilá’s failure to verify the veracity of Sánchez-Delgado’s statements and his steadfast refusal to withdraw the FEC complaint was irresponsible, unethical, and a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (1999) and Rule 8.4 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Model Rules Of PROf’l Conduct R. 8.4. On July 18, 2000, we issued a show cause order. See Docket Document No. 3. On July 19, 2000, Comptroller Díaz Sal-daña reported that the sales of most DTCs carried out under Law 190 did not comply with standard regulations and parameters. Comptroller Diaz Saldaña identified irregularities in the sale process of most of the health facilities. However, Comptroller Diaz Saldaña also indicated that his office found no irregularities in Petitioner Romero-Barceló’s behavior. Respondent Acevedo-Vilá did not apprise the FEC of this information. On July 20, 2000, Respondent Acevedo-Vilá sent a letter to the FEC reporting that Sánehez-Delgado retracted his original statement under oath. Respondent Acevedo-Vilá again defends himself against Petitioner’s allegations in the June 1, 2000 letter he submitted to the FEC, stating that he had been assured that he was not a subject of state investigation “because the reporter’s sources have no credibility.” On August 4, 2000, Sánchez-Delgado was charged with seventeen criminal felony charges for violation of the Puerto Rico perjury statute. On September 15, 2000, the FEC’s Office of the General Counsel recommended that the file be closed and that “no action” be taken with respect to, inter alia, Carlos Rodríguez-Mateo, Domingo Garcia, Carlos Romero-Barceló, and Romero-Barceló’s Election Committee. In addition, the Office of the General Counsel concluded that even if Sánchez-Delgado’s statements were credible, “neither the statements nor other information on the public record indicate that the $175,000 payment was a campaign contribution.” In addition, the General Counsel’s report reflects that “no record of contribution to Carlos Romero-Barceló either individually or in a lump sum” approaches the sum of $175,000, and that “there is no information that the $175,000 ... was intended or used for Carlos Romero-Barceló’s campaign .... ” On September 22, 2000, the FEC in a vote of 6-0 adopted and approved the General Counsel’s determination to dismiss the complaint, a decision which Respondent Acevedo-Vilá did not seek to review. Respondent Acevedo-Vilá twice moved to dismiss the present petition in August and September 2000, see Docket Documents Nos. J and 22, motions which we denied. See Docket Documents Nos. 5, 11, and 25. On September 11, 2000, we ordered Magistrate Judge Castellanos to conduct a limited, preliminary investigation into Petitioner Romero-Barceló’s allegations. Docket Document No.4■ On September 15, 27, and 28, 2000, Magistrate Judge Castellanos conducted a hearing to determine the sufficiency of the evidence with regard to whether Respondent Acevedo-Vilá knew or should have known about the unreliable character of Sánchez-Delga-do’s allegations. The following witnesses testified during this hearing: Petitioner Romero-Barceló; Respondent Acevedo-Vilá; Dr. Rodríguez-Mateo; Domingo García; Migdalia Rivera-Pizarro, an employee, at the time of the hearing, of local NPP Senator Ramón Luis Rivera, Jr.; Ombudsman López Méndez; Héctor Santiago-Rivera, an attorney consulted by Sán-chez-Delgado; José Gil Colón-Rodríguez, an associate of Sánchez-Delgado; Celeste Benitez, an individual implicated by Colón-Rodríguez in allegedly conspiring with Sánchez-Delgado; Carlos J. Ruiz-Nazario, Chief of Staff for Respondent Vilá Acevedo-Vilá at the time of the hearing; Ferdinand Mercado, Secretary General of the PDP at the time of the hearing; David Rivé-Power, Campaign Director for the PDP “Sila 2000” Committee; Victor Rivera-Hernández, Executive Assistant to the President of the PDP at the time of the hearing; and Efraín Rivera-Carlos, a process server. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Magistrate found that there was sufficient evidence to continue disciplinary proceedings against Respondent Acevedo-Vilá. See Docket Document No. 4,6. After having thoroughly reviewed the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Castellanos, we issued an Opinion and Order on February 9, 2001, in which we concluded that a formal disciplinary proceeding was required under Local Rule 211, and that Respondent Acevedo-Vilá was to be given “the opportunity to show cause why disciplinary action is not merited in his case.” D.P.R. LOCAL R. 211.5(B). We appointed Magistrate Judge Aida Delgado-Colón, Steven C. Lausell, Esq., and Rafael Pérez-Bachs, Esq., to a panel (“the Panel”) to determine whether Respondent Acevedo-Vilá knew or should have known on October 12,1999, that the principal basis for his FEC complaint, i.e., Sánchez-Delgado’s sworn statements, lacked credibility, and whether Respondent Acevedo-Vilá informed the FEC in a timely fashion about the changing nature of his information and belief regarding the veracity of Sánchez-Delgado’s statements. Later, Pérez-Bachs resigned. We ordered the two-member Panel to review the entire record as it existed, and to hold a hearing in which witnesses may be called and cross-examined and to make, upon a clear and convincing evidence standard, detailed findings of fact with regard to two material issues. We also ordered the Panel to recommend what disciplinary action, if any, the court should take against Respondent Acevedo-Vilá, and the reasons for such action. We reminded the panel that the Bar of this court, rather than Petitioner Romero-Barceló or Respondent Acevedo-Vilá, carries the burden of proof. In accordance with our Order, hearings were held June 3, June 4, and July 31, 2002, before Panel members Attorney Steven Lausell and Magistrate-Judge Aida Delgado-Colón, during which Respondent Acevedo-Vilá was afforded the opportunity to present and cross-examine witnesses. Several witnesses testified at the hearing conducted before the Panel: Attorney David Rivé-Power, Attorney Carlos Ruiz Nazario, Ferdinand Mercado, Victor Rivera Hernández, Charles E. Figueroa Alvarez, Héctor Santiago, Attorney David Noriega, and Attorney Nicolás Nogueras. On April 13, 2003, the Panel issued its Report and Recommendation. Docket Document No. 63. The Panel summarized the factual background of the events in question, and tackled the two issues we had presented for its consideration. As to the first, whether Respondent Acevedo-Vilá knew or should have known on October 12, 1999 that Sánchez-Delgado’s sworn statements lacked credibility, the Panel found that [t]he context of the sworn statements, which raised the specter of ulterior motives of both Sánchez-Delgado in signing them and Attorney Nogueras in providing them to Acevedo-Vilá; the content of the sworn statements in which no reference is made to political campaign contributions regarding Romero-Barce-ló; and the credibility of Sánchez-Del-gado which was called into question by members of Acevedo-Vilá’s own political party, all convince this Panel that Acevedo-Vilá knowingly misrepresented the truth in filing the complaint before the FEC and publicized the filing in order to mislead the voters and gain political advantage over his political adversary, Romero-Barceló. Docket Document No. 63. The Panel was unconvinced by Respondent’s efforts at corroborating Sánchez-Delgado’s statements. First, the Panel noted that no date was provided for Domingo Garcia’s admitted intervention on behalf of Dr. Rodriguez Mateo on the sale of the Salinas DTC, and that Petitioner Romero-Barceló stated that this type of intervention did not materially differ from assistance his office gave to all his constituents. Furthermore, Petitioner Romero-Barceló asserted that he did not remember discussing the matter personally with Dr. Rodriguez Mateo. Second, the Panel noted that sales of DTCs under their appraisal value were legal, and that this, in and of itself, did not support an inference that the sales were being conducted as part of a scheme to divert funds to NPP campaign coffers. Third, the Panel found that Respondent’s confirmation of Sánchez-Delgado’s statement that Domingo Garcia was limping sometime in 1998 was “easily detectable by third parties and in no way added credibility to Sánchez-Delgado’s statements.” Fourth, the fact that Petitioner Romero-Barceló had provided Dr. Rodriguez Mateo with an invitation to the Inaugural Ball for President Clinton in January 1997 did not sustain a finding of an alleged campaign contribution concurrent with the May 1998 Salinas DTC sale. Fifth, the Panel noted that Respondent confirmed and made public that Dr. Rodriguez Mateo or persons related to him had made political contributions to Petitioner. However, the Panel noted that Respondent failed to note that those contributions had been reported to the FEC, were within the statutory maximum limits and, therefore, legal. They also questioned Respondent’s characterization of 1996, 1997, and 1998 contributions as “contemporaneous” to the May 1998 sale. Finally, the Panel considered the fact that Dr. Rodriguez-Mateo’s father was part of Petitioner’s security detail escort. “Even if true,” the Panel found, “this is not illegal, per se, nor is it relevant to the assessment of Sánchez-Delgado’s credibility or the veracity of his allegations as these are related to Romero-Barceló.” Id. The Panel observed that Dr. Rodriguez-Mateo’s father had been employed by Romero-Barceló since 1976, which predated the sale of the Salinas DTC by twenty-two years. As to our second question, whether Respondent informed the FEC in a timely fashion about the changing nature of his information and belief regarding the veracity of Sánchez-Delgado’s statements, the Panel found that “[djuring March 2000 Acevedo-Vilá knew and had publicly admitted that the sworn statements on which the FEC complaint was premised had been contradicted and recanted by Sán-ehez-Delgado. At this time he should have taken timely action to advise the FEC.” The Panel noted that in June 1, 2000, Respondent Acevedo-Vilá informed the FEC that Petitioner sent him a letter requesting the dismissal of the FEC complaint, and yet failed to inform the FEC of Sánchez-Delgado’s conflicting March 16 and 24 statements. The Panel found that this was an attempt by Respondent to “add heat to an investigation which had already become frivolous. Upon sending the June 1, 2000 letter, Acevedo-Vilá breached his ethical obligations by failing to disclose relevant subsequent developments and, thus, in effect misrepresenting the current state of affairs to the FEC.” Id. The Panel recommended that Respondent be publicly reprimanded for breaching his ethical obligations as a member of the Bar of this court in violation of Rules 3.1 and 8.4(a) and (c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by this Court. On May 22, 2003, Respondent Acevedo-Vilá presented his objection to the Panel’s Report and Recommendation. Docket Document No. 70. In his objection, Respondent challenges the procedure of this court and the findings of the Panel, alleging, inter alia, that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the disciplinary proceeding, that this court denied him due process, and that the Panel’s findings are not supported by the evidence. Id. Respondent has raised some of these arguments previously in his motions to dismiss. Docket Document No. U- In the interest of completeness, we will discuss each of Respondent’s arguments in turn. II. Legal Standard A. Disciplinary Proceedings “Any court which has the power to admit attorneys to practice may also sanction them for unprofessional conduct.” Standing Comm, on Discipline v. Ross, 735 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir.1984). “In the federal system there is no uniform procedure for disciplinary proceedings.” Id. The individual judicial districts are free to define the rules to be followed and the grounds for punishment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654. Federal district courts are bound by the disciplinary rules they implement when proceeding against attorneys for violation of ethical standards. Dailey v. Vought Aircraft Co., 141 F.3d 224, 230 (5th Cir.1998); Matter of Thalheim, 853 F.2d 383, 386, 388 (5th Cir.1988); United States v. Stoneberger, 805 F.2d 1391, 1393 (9th Cir.1986); Matter of Abrams, 521 F.2d 1094, 1104-05 (3d Cir.1975). Lawyers are subject to discipline for improper conduct in connection with business activities, individual or personal activities, and activities as a judicial officer. D.P.R. Looal R. 211.4(B) (rules of professional conduct will be applicable whether or not the act or omission occurred in the course of an attorney-client relationship or in the course of judicial proceedings); Matter of Johnson, 240 Kan. 334, 729 P.2d 1175, 1180 (1986); State v. Russell, 227 Kan. 897, 610 P.2d 1122, 1127 (1980). The Rules have also been held applicable to conduct in the heat of a public election campaign. Russell, 610 P.2d at 1127; State v. Michaelis, 210 Neb. 545, 316 N.W.2d 46, 53 (1982). Rule 211.4 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico provides the procedure that we must follow when misconduct or allegations of misconduct by an attorney admitted to practice in this jurisdiction come before this court. See Schneider v. Colegio De Abogados De P.R., 187 F.3d 30, 40 n. 16 (1st Cir.1999) (Lipez, J., concurring). In the District of Puerto Rico, Local Rule 211.4 states that “[a]ny attorney admitted to practice before this Court may be disbarred, suspended from practice, reprimanded, or subjected to such other disciplinary action as the circumstances may warrant for misconduct defined in these Rules, and for good cause shown, and after notice and opportunity to be heard.” D.P.R. Looal R. 211.4(A). The rules specify that any [a]cts or omissions by an attorney admitted to practice before this Court, individually or in concert with any other person or persons, which violate the [ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct], shall constitute misconduct and shall be grounds for discipline, whether or not the act or omission occurred in the course of an attorney-client relationship or in the course of judicial proceedings. D.P.R. Local R. 211.4(B). Rule 211.5 states that when “misconduct or allegations of misconduct” are brought to the attention of the court, “the Judge shall refer the matter for investigation and the prosecution of a formal disciplinary proceeding or such other recommendation as may be appropriate.” D.P.R. Looal R. 211.5(B). “If after investigation, the Court determines that disciplinary proceedings are warranted, it shall issue an order requiring the Respondent-attorney to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken, which order shall be served at the address registered with the Clerk of the Court.” Id. “[A]fter the Respondent-attorney’s answer to the order to show cause, ... if any issue of fact is raised or the Respondent-attorney wishes to be heard, the Court shall set the matter for prompt hearing before one or more Judges of the Court or such other person or persons as the Court may designate.” Id. The First Circuit has clarified that an attorney facing disciplinary proceedings must be granted due process through notice and an opportunity to be heard. In re Cordova-Gonzalez, 996 F.2d 1334, 1336 (1st Cir.1993). B. Rule 8.4 Rule 8.4 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct stipulates, in part, that “[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; .... (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” MODEL RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT, R. 8.4 (2003). The prohibition against false statements has been interpreted to include those statements that are knowingly false, as well as statements which, with ordinary care, would have been known to be false. Michaelis, 316 N.W.2d at 53-54; In re Palmisano, 70 F.3d 483, 486 (7th Cir.1995) (affirming reciprocal disbarment when state court had disbarred attorney for statements made in knowledge of their falsity or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Price, 557 Pa. 166, 732 A.2d 599, 604 (1999) (prima-facie case of violation of Rule 8.4 when misrepresentation knowingly made, or made with reckless ignorance of the truth or falsity of the representation). In addition, courts have held that the rule against dishonesty can be violated by silence or a failure to speak, including conduct that involved no express misrepresentations but simply consisted of a failure to reveal underlying facts which might be necessary to avoid misleading someone. “A half-truth or silence can be as much a misrepresentation as a lie ... [particularly when] they fail to advise the court of very important necessary information .... The necessity for complete candor when dealing with the court, particularly in an ex parte context, cannot be overemphasized.” In re Greene, 290 Or. 291, 620 P.2d 1379, 1383 (1980) (the court held that the failure of the lawyer to inform the court of pertinent facts constituted misrepresentation which violated Oregon’s analog of Rule 8.4); see also Bradley F. Tellam, The Dishonesty RuleA Rule with a Future, 74 Or. L.Rev. 665, 669 (1995) (compiling cases); ABA Comm, on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Informal Op. 1386 (1977) (finding that an attorney’s failure to reveal an agreement to the court and to opposing council violated the ethical rules). The dishonesty rule has also been applied in instances where an attorney fails to correct innocently created misunderstandings of which a lawyer subsequently becomes aware and neglects to correct her own statements that were initially believed to be true but later revealed to be false. In re Hubert, 265 Or. 27, 507 P.2d 1141, 1141-1142 (1973) (an attorney was disciplined for his failure to correct an unintentional misstatement about the amount of fees that he had received from his client because of his subsequent failure to inform the court of the true facts, even though his client told him immediately after the hearing that his statement was false); In re Williams, 314 Or. 530, 840 P.2d 1280, 1283-1284 (1992) (“[a] misrepresentation can be made by making an assertion that is not in accordance with the truth when made ... or by failing to correct a representation that, although true when made, is no longer true in the light of information later acquired-”). C. Clear-and-Convincing-Evidence Standard The clear-and-convincing-evidence standard has been recognized as the applicable standard in attorney discipline proceedings. See Sealed Appellant 1 v. Sealed Appellee 1, 211 F.3d 252, 256 (5th Cir.2000); In re Medrano, 956 F.2d 101, 102 (5th Cir.1992) (a court may discipline an attorney only upon the presentation of clear and convincing evidence); Rosenthal v. Justices of the S.Ct. of Cal., 910 F.2d 561, 564 (9th Cir.1990) (“[t]he burden is on the state to establish culpability by convincing proof and to a reasonable certainty”); In re Levine, 675 F.Supp. 1312, 1318 (M.D.Fla.1986); cf. In re Córdova-González, 996 F.2d 1334, 1336 (1st Cir.1993) (citing Rosenthal for the procedural due process rights of a charged attorney in a disciplinary proceeding); New England Ins. Co. v. Sylvia, 783 F.Supp. 6, 10 (D.N.H.1991); but see Palmisano, 70 F.3d 483, 486 (7th Cir.1995) (adopting preponderance of the evidence standard). An attorney disciplinary proceeding does not require that civil or criminal liability be established. Johnson, 729 P.2d at 1180-1181. The Supreme Court has defined the clear and convincing standard “as that weight of proof which ‘produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established, evidence so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as to enable the fact finder to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts’ ” of the case. Medrano, 956 F.2d at 102 (quoting Cruzan by Cruzan v. Dir., Missouri Dep’t. of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 285 n. 11, 110 S.Ct. 2841, 111 L.Ed.2d 224 (1990) (internal punctuation and citations omitted)). D. Review of Prior Proceedings and Sanctions Generally speaking, in reviewing a respondent’s conduct through the record of disciplinary proceedings, we will defer to a panel’s findings unless these are not supported by clear and convincing evidence. In re Doyle, 144 Ill.2d 451, 163 Ill.Dec. 515, 581 N.E.2d 669, 674 (1991); see also Matter of Levine, 174 Ariz. 146, 847 P.2d 1093, 1117 (1993) (recommendations of the committee are given “great weight”). However, the court is ultimately responsible for the imposition of sanctions. In making sanction recommendations, this court will use the American Bar Association’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1986) (“ABA Standards”) as a basic, but not conclusive, guide. Matter of Brady, 186 Ariz. 370, 923 P.2d 836, 839 (1996) (“[although not mandatory, the ABA Standards are persuasive as to appropriate sanctions and provide a ‘useful tool’ in deciding the sanction to be applied.”). Under the ABA Standards, a court contemplating sanctions should consider (1) the duty breached, (2) the attorney’s mental state, (3) the extent of the actual or potential injury, and (4) other aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Id. at § 3.0. The standards make distinctions upon the level of conduct required for particular ethical violations. Id. The standards are adaptable, recognizing that “sanctions imposed must reflect the circumstances of each individual lawyer, and therefore provide for consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in each case.” Id. at § 1.3. The ABA Standards provide for disbarment when a lawyer “engages in ... intentional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.” Id. § 5.11(b). A reprimand is the appropriate sanction when a “lawyer engages in any other conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.” Id. at § 5.13. ABA Standard 6.1 states that, with regards to false statements, fraud and representation, “[reprimand is appropriate when a lawyer is negligent either in determining whether statements or documents are false or in taking remedial action when material information is being withheld, and causes injury or potential injury to a party to the legal proceeding, or causes an adverse or potentially adverse effect on the legal proceeding.” Id. at § 6.1. III. Analysis A. Jurisdiction Respondent notes that the FEC has “exclusive jurisdiction over civil enforcement of federal campaign finance and election matters.” Docket Document No. 70. From that premise, he argues that “the clear intention of this action brought by petitioner is to have this Court make a separate inquiry as to the same facts currently pending for investigation by the [FEC]” and that “the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court with relation to underlying facts under the exclusive purview of the [FEC] is illegal.” Id. The federal district courts have the authority to adopt and enforce local rules. The First Circuit identified three distinct sources for this authority. First, Congress has empowered the Supreme Court to prescribe rules of practice and procedure for the federal courts. In turn, the Supreme Court has authorized district courts to craft local rules to implement, or fill gaps in, national rules of practice and procedure. Second, Congress has vested the lower federal courts with independent authority to prescribe local rules. Third, district courts have inherent power arising from the nature of the judicial process, and this power extends to certain types of rulemaking. Stem v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Mass., 214 F.3d 4, 13 (1st Cir.2000) (internal citations omitted). In particular, a federal court has the “inherent power ... to control admission to its bar and to discipline attorneys who appear before it.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (citing Ex parte Burr, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 529, 531, 6 L.Ed. 152 (1824)). See also Whitehouse v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Rhode Island, 53 F.3d 1349 (1st Cir.1995). The First Circuit recognizes, moreover, the court’s “duty and responsibility to supervise the conduct of attorneys who appear before it.” See Culebras Enterps. Corp. v. Rivera-Rios, 846 F.2d 94, 97 (1st Cir.1988); see also Greer’s Refuse Serv., Inc. v. Browning-Ferris Indus., 843 F.2d 443, 446 (11th Cir.1988) (“federal courts have clear statutory authority to promulgate rules governing the admission and conduct of the attorneys who practice before them.”). For its part, “the FEC is an independent agency established by Congress to ‘administer, seek to obtain compliance with, and formulate policy’ with respect to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (“FECA”) and chapters 95 and 96 of Title 26. 86 Stat. 3, as amended, 2 U.S.C. § 437c(b)(l).” Fed. Election Com’n v. NRA Political Victory Fund, 513 U.S. 88, 91, 115 S.Ct. 537, 130 L.Ed.2d 439 (1994). The FEC has “exclusive jurisdiction with respect to the civil enforcement of such provisions.” 2 U.S.C. § 437c(b)(l); see Fed. Election Comm’n v. Nat’l Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 U.S. 480, 485, 105 S.Ct. 1459, 84 L.Ed.2d 455 (1985). However, the FEC’s jurisdiction has not been interpreted broadly. In Galliano v. United States Postal Serv., 836 F.2d 1362 (D.C.Cir.1988), the authority of the Postal Service to enforce its own prohibition against false representations was not preempted by the FEC’s exclusive authority with respect to representations that were not specifically regulated by FECA, even if those representations were part of political campaign literature. See Galliano, 836 F.2d at 1369. The Galliano court relied on the principle that “ ‘a precisely drawn, detailed statute pre-empts more general remedies.’ ” Id. at 1367 (quoting Brown v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 96 S.Ct. 1961, 48 L.Ed.2d 402, (1976)). The Postal Service could not enforce its regulation against false representations only where the particular representation at issue was also covered under FECA. See id. It follows that the FEC’s exclusive authority is limited to the enforcement of specific provisions listed in 2 U.S.C. § 437c(b)(l). Here, we are investigating a possible violation by Respondent, an attorney admitted to practice before the court, of Rules 8.4(a) and (c) of the Rules of Professional Responsibility. The alleged violation involves Respondent’s filing of a complaint with the FEC accusing a political opponent of receiving illegal campaign contributions. Whether Petitioner Romero-Barceló violated federal electoral laws is not a matter before this court. Since both candidates where running for federal office, such an inquiry is within the “exclusive jurisdiction” of the FEC, as it has the duty to enforce the statutes regulating federal elections. See Galliano, 836 F.2d at 1368. This court is concerned only with the alleged ethical violation. It is possible that, as part of its investigation of the possible ethical violation, the court would have reviewed some of the same documents or interviewed some of the same witnesses as the FEC. This fact alone does not diminish our duty to investigate, nor does it affect our authority to do so. Perhaps if a provision against ethical violations by attorneys were part of FECA or of chapters 95 and 96 of Title 26 it could be argued that, as a function of 2 U.S.C. § 437c(b)(l), the FEC would have the exclusive authority to enforce the provision. See id. However, the court is not aware of such a provision. As a result, this court’s authority to enforce our own Local Rules is untouched by FECA, and this matter is properly before us. The matter before this court is the possible violation of a Local Rule. As shown infra, we have the authority to enact such rules and to enforce them. Consequently, this court has jurisdiction over this subject matter. Similarly, the court has jurisdiction over the Respondent’s person in his capacity as an attorney admitted to practice before the court. The fact that the alleged ethical violation may involve Respondent Aeevedo-Vilá’s filing of a complaint with the FEC has no effect on the court’s authority to review the alleged ethical violation and, if appropriate, to discipline Respondent. For the court to find otherwise would require the adoption of a new concept which absolutely precludes disciplinary action if a colorable argument could be made that the disciplinary action intersects factually with any judicial or agency proceedings. To the extent that Respondent’s argument is an invitation to adopt such a concept, the invitation is declined. B. Constitutional Issues 1. Nature of the Proceedings as Quasi-Criminal A fundamental premise of Respondent Acevedo-Vilá’s attacks on the prior disciplinary proceedings is his contention, citing In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 551, 88 S.Ct. 1222, 20 L.Ed.2d 117 (1968), that attorney disciplinary proceedings are “quasi-criminal” in nature and that he is entitled to many of the rights enjoyed by criminal defendants, particularly the rights associated with due process. Due process is a flexible concept. A determination of the particular process due depends on the nature of the proceedings and the interests at stake. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 268-69, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970). Although disciplinary proceedings are characterized as quasi-criminal, “the imposition of disciplinary sanctions itself implicates an independent and fundamental duty of the district court — the supervision of the attorneys who practice as members of its bar — in ways that other sanctions simply cannot.” Crowe v. Smith, 151 F.3d 217, 230 (5th Cir.1998). Disbarment proceedings, rather than [a] resolution regarding the alleged criminality of a person’s acts, [are] a determination of the moral fitness of an attorney to continue in the practice of law. Although conduct which could form the basis for a criminal prosecution might also underlie the institution of disciplinary proceedings, the focus is upon gauging an individual’s character and fitness, and not upon adjudging the criminality of his prior acts or inflicting punishment for them. In re Daley, 549 F.2d 469, 474 (7th Cir.1977). Thus, when faced with an attorney’s challenge to his disciplinary proceeding premised on his claim to the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination, the Daley court found that [a] clear distinction exists between proceedings whose essence is penal, intended to redress criminal wrongs by imposing sentences of imprisonment, other types of detention or commitment, or fines, and proceedings whose purpose is remedial, intended to protect the integrity of the courts and to safeguard the interests of the public by assuring the continued fitness of attorneys licensed by the jurisdiction to practice law. The former type of proceeding is, in actuality, ‘criminal’ in nature and therefore within the ambit of the Fifth Amendment safeguards against self-incrimination; the latter is not. Id. at 475; see also Johnson, 921 F.2d at 586 (disbarment proceedings “seek to determine the fitness of an official of the court to continue in that capacity and to protect the courts and the public from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice.”). Thus, “[although attorney discipline proceedings have been called ‘quasi-criminal,’ the due process rights of an attorney in a disciplinary proceeding ‘do not extend so far as to guarantee the full panoply of rights afforded to an accused in a criminal case.’ ” Cordova-Gonzalez, 996 F.2d at 1336 (quoting Razatos v. Colorado Supreme Court, 746 F.2d 1429, 1435 (10th Cir.1984)) (citations omitted); see also Sealed Appellant, 211 F.3d at 254-55 (quoting Razatos); Palmisano, 70 F.3d at 486 (where state court had disbarred attorney using clear and convincing burden of proof, federal court declined to find that quasi-criminal nature of the proceedings required the federal court to make an independent finding of. an ethical violation using a reasonable doubt burden of proof); Rosenthal, 910 F.2d at 564 (finding that a lawyer disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal proceeding and, as a result, protections normally afforded to a criminal defendant do not apply); Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings of Phelps, 637 F.2d 171, 176 (10th Cir.1981) (finding that, although the proceedings were quasi-criminal, the due process right to closing arguments extends only to criminal cases); Daley, 549 F.2d at 476 n. 6 (compiling cases). Rather, “an attorney facing discipline ‘is entitled to procedural due process, including notice and an opportunity to be heard.’ ” Id. (quoting Rosenthal, 910 F.2d at 564); cf. Dailey, 141 F.3d at 229 (finding that the quasi-criminal nature of disciplinary proceedings demanded notice and opportunity to be heard); Phelps, 637 F.2d at 176 (holding that “the standard in [attorney disciplinary proceedings] is one of permitting the attorney a fair opportunity to present his case”); Lowe v. Scott, 959 F.2d 323, 335 (1st Cir.1992) (due process in proceeding to revoke physician’s license requires notice of the charges and an opportunity to be heard). In fact, “that attorney discipline proceedings require proof only by clear and convincing evidence, as opposed to ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ is indicative of the mere quasi-criminal nature of such proceedings, which nature would not implicate all of the due process requirements attendant purely criminal proceedings.” Sealed Appellant, 211 F.3d at 254-55. Consequently, inasmuch as Respondent Acevedo-Vilá is suggesting that the procedures here are insufficient because they do not grant him traditional measures of criminal due process, these arguments fail. 2. Notice as Required by Due Process Respondent Acevedo-Vilá argues that he did not have notice of the charges against him, alleging that at the beginning of the formal proceedings Respondent had yet to be given notice of the violations that he had committed. Petitioner’s original complaint alleges misconduct in (a) filing [the FEC complaint] under oath using three sworn statements he knew, or should have known, had false and fraudulent statements without at the very least confronting or questioning the source of the accusations; (b) in refusing to withdraw the complaint when he himself had been linked behind the scheme to smear Petitioner’s reputation; and (c) in refusing to withdraw it when he has publicly stated that the source Sánchez has no credibility, grossly violates and contravenes the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and amounts to conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar of the Court. Docket Document No. 1. Moreover, Respondent acknowledges “Petitioner’s complaint charged Respondent with violating Rule 8.4 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.” Docket Document No. L Respondent avers, however, that this court impermissibly changed the nature of the charges against him, so much so that it constructively left Respondent without notice as to the exact basis of the proceedings against him. Respondent substantiates this by pointing to our written opinions. In our September 11, 2000 Opinion and Order, Respondent alleges that we charged him with an “intentional violation of Rule 8.4,” ordering that an evidentiary hearing be conducted by a magistrate to determine whether “Respondent knew or should have known about the unreliable character of’ the Sworn Statements which formed the basis of Respondent’s FEC complaint. Respondent then states that we violated his due process rights, when, after the evidentiary hearing held by Magistrate Judge Castel-lanos, we ordered the Panel to determine whether Respondent timely informed the FEC of the “changing nature of the information” upon which the complaint was based. Finally, Respondent avers that the Panel’s recommendation that Respondent be charged with not only Rule 8.4 but Rule 3.1 was the first instance in which he was given notice of a possible Rule 3.1 violation. Respondent notes that the Supreme Court has held that an attorney must receive prior notice as to the “reach of the proceedings and the precise nature of the charges leveled” against him. Id.; see Ruffalo, 390 U.S. at 552, 88 S.Ct. 1222. Respondent contends that, as in Ruffalo, the court’s clarification of the investigatory scope of the formal panel’s hearing, and the Panel’s invocation of Rule 3.1, constitute violations of his procedural due process rights. In Ruffalo, an attorney in state disbarment proceedings did not have notice that his employment of an individual would be a disbarment offense until after both he and the individual had testified at length on all the material facts. Only after their testimony did the state bar add a charge premised on the testimony. The federal district court held that, notwithstanding the state bar’s disbarment, there had been no misconduct, while the Court of Appeals disagreed and disbarred the attorney. The Supreme Court found that a “charge must be known before the proceedings commence. They become a trap when, after they are underway, the charges are amended on the basis of testimony of the accused. He can then be given no opportunity to expunge the earlier statements and start afresh.” Id. at 551, 88 S.Ct. 1222. We find that the facts here are distinguishable. Although a petitioner brings misconduct proceedings to the court’s attention, a court thus informed need not proceed with disciplinary proceedings as a petitioner does not have standing to control the disposition of the case or force the court’s hand. At the point the petition is made the court becomes the disciplinary body, taking into account the real party in interest, the public. See Statewide Grievance Comm. v. Botwick, 226 Conn. 299, 627 A.2d 901, 906-907 (1993) (“once a complaint has been made against an attorney, the court controls the situation and procedure, as the interests of justice may seem to it to require.”) (internal citations omitted). It follows, then, that a court apprised of misconduct need not limit itself to the charges or characterization of misconduct forwarded by the initial petitioner. It may, upon initial review and investigation, choose to modify the nature of the disciplinary proceedings, as long as it provides the respondent with notice of the alleged misconduct and an opportunity to respond. We draw Respondent’s attention to Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Sup.Ct. of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626, 105 S.Ct. 2265, 85 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985). In Zauderer, the Office of the Disciplinary Council of Ohio filed a complaint against an attorney alleging that several advertisements he had placed violated the rules of professional conduct. Id. at 633, 105 S.Ct. 2265. The complaint charged the attorney with, inter alia, issuing a “false” and “deceptive” advertisement because it offered legal representation on drunken driving cases on a contingency fee basis, an offer which the complaint alleged would run afoul of other professional rules of conduct. Id. Upon review of the complaint, the Board of Commissioners concurred that a violation of the rules had occurred. Id. at 634, 105 S.Ct. 2265. Its reasoning, however, differed from the reasoning in the complaint. The Board found the advertisement deceptive because its failure “to mention the common practice of plea bargaining in drunken driving cases, ... might be deceptive to potential clients who would be unaware of the likelihood they would both be found guilty (of a lesser offense) and be liable for attorney’s fees (because they had not been convicted of drunken driving.)” Id. The attorney in Zauderer appealed, quoting Ruffalo, complaining that the change in the basis of his violation was a denial of procedural due process, Upon review, the Supreme Court stated: That the Board of Commissioners chose to make its recommendation of discipline on the basis of reasoning different from that of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel is of little moment: what is important is that the Board’s recommendations put appellant on notice of the charges he had to answer to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Appellant does not contend that he was afforded no opportunity to respond to the Board’s recommendation; indeed, the Ohio rules appear to provide ample opportunity for response to Board recommendations, and it appears that appellant availed himself of that opportunity. Id. at 654, 105 S.Ct. 2265. The Court was not persuaded by the attorney’s suggestion that he was prejudiced by his inability to counter the Commission’s conclusion that it was common practice for persons charged with drunken driving to plead to lesser offenses. It noted that the attorney was not precluded from arguing that judicial notice of those facts was inappropriate during the proceedings. Id. at 655 n. 17, 105 S.Ct. 2265. Finally, the Court found that the attorney’s rebanee on Ruffalo was misplaced. Although the majority in that case did hold that a change in the charges against the petitioner during proceedings before the Ohio Board of Bar Commissioners violated due process, the feature of that case that was particularly offensive was that the change was such that the very evidence put on by the petitioner in defense of the original charges became, under the revised charges, inculpatory. Thus, in that case, the original charges functioned as a ‘trap,’ for they lulled the petitioner into presenting evidence that ‘irrevocably as-surfed] his disbarment under charges not yet made.’ In this case, the variance between the theory of the Office of Dis-ciphnary Counsel and the Board of Bar Commissioners had no such prejudicial effect on appellant. Id. at n. 18 (internal citations omitted). Under this standard, the Panel’s finding of a 3.1 violation, if accepted by this court, would not comport with due process. First mentioned at the end of the formal proceedings, the additional charge does not allow Respondent to craft a rule-specific defense or provide evidence to counter that specific charge. However, we find that Respondent has had ample notice and opportunity to face the charge of a Rule 8.4 violation. After Petitioner’s motion, Respondent filed motions to dismiss, Docket Document Nos. 4, 22, which this court considered and denied. Docket Document Nos. 5, 25. Subsequently, we referred Petitioner Romero-Barce-ló’s petition for an evidentiary hearing to determine if Petitioner Romero-Barceló’s grievance had merit, after which Respondent was allowed to submit a brief. Docket Document No. 39. Formal hearings were held before Magistrate Judge Aida Delgado-Colón and Attorney Steven Lau-sell, where Respondent was granted an opportunity to present evidence and a defense against the charges. Respondent Acevedo-Vilá received proper notice of the formal disciplinary proceeding, and he was granted more than a year to prepare his defense. Finally, he was served with the Panel’s Report and Recommendation, to which he submitted an opposition. Docket Document No. 67. In short, “the treatment accorded [Respondent] provided him with a pointed example of the fairness of the court whose integrity his conduct had endangered.” Phipps v. Wilson, 186 F.2d 748, 751 (7th Cir.1951). 3. Challenge to Evidentiary Hearing a. Participation of Petitioner in Proceedings Respondent Acevedo-Vilá complains that in the hearing before Magistrate Castellanos, “Petitioner RomeroBarceló actively participate