If the Respondent files an answer, he or she shall allege, and thereafter be required to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, to the Board of Disciplinary Appeals one or more of the following defenses to avoid the imposition of discipline identical, to the extent practicable, with that directed by the judgment of the other jurisdiction:
A. That the procedure followed in the other jurisdiction on the disciplinary matter was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process.B. That there was such an infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct in the other jurisdiction as to give rise to the clear conviction that the Board of Disciplinary Appeals, consistent with its duty, should not accept as final the conclusion on the evidence reached in the other jurisdiction.C. That the imposition by the Board of Disciplinary Appeals of discipline identical, to the extent practicable, with that imposed by the other jurisdiction would result in grave injustice.D. That the misconduct established in the other jurisdiction warrants substantially different discipline in this state.E. That the misconduct for which the attorney was disciplined in the other jurisdiction does not constitute Professional Misconduct in this state. If the Board of Disciplinary Appeals determines that one or more of the foregoing defenses have been established, it shall enter such orders as it deems necessary and appropriate.