Whether the burden of proof was improperly shifted to the attorney, in violation of the Due Process Clause, by finding dishonesty based on lack of records/information

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. In an attorney disciplinary matter in which charges against a lawyer must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, and there is no positive evidence of misconduct presented, whether the burden of proof has been shifted to an attorney, in violation of the Due Process Clause, by a determination that the lawyer’s lack of records and lack of knowledge about a person’s purpose in cashing checks was proof of dishonesty, subjecting the attorney to disciplines. 2. Whether it is a violation of the Due Process Clause for a tribunal in an attorney disciplinary case to find that a lawyer has acted dishonestly by misappropriating funds when misappropriation was not charged and that same tribunal has ruled that no theft occurred. 3. Whether it is a violation of an individual’s First Amendment right to engage in private relationships by finding that that a lawyer who cashes a check for a friend engages in the practice of law and is therefore subject to state rules of professional conduct.