They didn't give him a hearing because he wasn't entitled to relitigate the issue of his conduct. A principle called collateral estoppel holds that if you lose on an issue in one case, you're not entitled to relitigate that same issue in a subsequent case (so long as the standards of proof are similar between the two cases). The New York Court of Appeals wasn't entitled to decide that Donzinger hadn't committed fraud. It had to accept as true the factual findings of the Southern District, which was affirmed by the Second Circuit. The only issue before the New York court in the disciplinary case was whether, taking as true that Donzinger tried to bribe a judge, etc., whether he should be suspended. That did not require a hearing: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_05...

> Further, respondent was afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate, as evinced by the voluminous record on which Judge Kaplan's findings were based. Judge Kaplan conducted a seven-week trial, heard 31 live witnesses (including respondent), and considered sworn testimony of three dozen others, as well as thousands of documents. Respondent appealed Judge Kaplan's decision, yet chose not to challenge the underlying factual findings. Thus, his argument that he was denied meaningful appellate review fails.

> Because Judge Kaplan's findings constitute uncontroverted evidence of serious professional misconduct which immediately threatens the public interest, respondent should be immediately suspended, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9 (a) (5) (see e.g. Matter of Truong, 2 AD3d 27 [1st Dept 2003]).