Section 25 - Reciprocal Discipline25.1. Upon being subjected to professional disciplinary action in another jurisdiction while subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to Section 8.1, an attorney shall promptly inform Disciplinary Counsel of such action in writing. Upon being informed that an attorney subject to disciplinary jurisdiction pursuant to Section 8.1 has been subjected to discipline in another jurisdiction while subject to disciplinary jurisdiction pursuant to Section 8.1, Disciplinary Counsel shall obtain a certified copy of such disciplinary order and file the same with the Board and shall file in the Nashville office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court a Notice of Submission with an attached copy of such disciplinary order.25.2. Upon receipt of a certified copy of an order pursuant to Section 25.1, the Court shall forthwith serve upon the attorney in accordance with Section 18.1 a notice containing: (a) A copy of the order from the other jurisdiction; and(b) An order directing that the attorney inform the Court, within thirty days from service of the notice, of any claim by the attorney predicated upon the grounds set forth in Section 25.4 that the imposition of the identical discipline in this State would be unwarranted and the reasons therefor.25.3. In the event the discipline imposed in the other jurisdiction has been stayed there, any reciprocal discipline imposed in this State shall be deferred until such stay expires. However, Disciplinary Counsel, in his or her discretion, may initiate and conduct an independent investigation of the attorney pursuant to Section 15.25.4. Upon the expiration of thirty days from service of the notice issued pursuant to Section of 25.2, the Court shall impose the identical discipline unless Disciplinary Counsel or the attorney demonstrates, or the Court finds, that upon the face of the record upon which the discipline is predicated it clearly appears: (a) That the procedure was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process; or(b) That there was such an infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct as to give rise to the clear conviction that the Court could not, consistent with its duty, accept as final the conclusion on that subject; or(c) That the misconduct established warrants substantially different discipline in this State. Where the Court determines that any of said elements exist, the Court shall enter such other order as it deems appropriate.25.5. In all other respects, a final adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney subject to disciplinary jurisdiction pursuant to Section 8.1 has been guilty of misconduct while subject to disciplinary jurisdiction pursuant to Section 8.1 shall establish conclusively the misconduct for purposes of a disciplinary proceeding in this State.