Whether the failure of a Panel Member to disclose conflicts of interests requires vacature of the Panel's decision

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Whether, prior to his participating in rendering decision in this reciprocal attorney disciplinary case, the failure ofa Panel Member to disclose to Respondent conflicts of interests due to the Panel Member's longstanding direct, extensive and substantial associations and relationships with the State of Louisiana, which had disbarred Respondent, requires vacature of the Panel’s decision pursuant to Commonwealth Coatings v. Continental Cas., 393 U.S. 145 (1968), and remand for consideration of the case by a fair and impartial Panel, devoid of any disqualifying conflicts of interests? : 2. Whether the three-Judge Panel below could possibly have discharged its Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 49 (1917) obligation to perform “an intrinsic consideration of the . state record” in this reciprocal attorney disciplinary case, when Respondent’s Exhibits, which were critical to understanding the merits of Respondent's Affirmative Defenses to disbarment by the State, were never transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit by the Louisiana Supreme Court, and remain “missing” entirely from the record? ; 3. Whether under Williams v. Pennsylvania, 136 S.Ct. 1988 (2016), all of the original Panel Members : should have been disqualified from deciding Respondent’s ‘Motion to Re-Open Case, etc,” and his “Motion for Reconsideration,” which had put the entire Panel “on notice of’ undisclosed conflicts of interests by their “Brother” Panel Member? 4, Whether the Court should exercise its inherent equitable power to vacate reciprocal discipline iu ; imposed against Respondent, a lawyer, because an Article III Federal Appellate Judge committed judicial misconduct, perhaps unwittingly, by failing to disclose conflicts of interests to Respondent, which should have disqualified the Judge from participating in the case?