I don't know of any jurisdiction in the United States that recognizes any difference between the two. It's not a particularly useful distinction, largely because the range of potential malpractice or misconduct is so wide.
A lawyer arguably commits misconduct with a sin of commission both when he solicits an appreciative client (resulting in no discernible harm to anyone) and when he manufactures evidence (resulting in his client losing his case and being forced to pay millions of dollars in sanctions).
And a lawyer arguably commits misconduct with a sin of omission both when he fails to sufficiently research some aspect of the law governing his client's case (resulting in no discernible harm to anyone), and when he fails to obey a court order (resulting in his client losing his case and being forced to pay millions of dollars in sanctions).
Regardless of whether the misconduct is active or passive, there could be either no meaningful injury to anyone, or someone could be massively prejudiced. The courts are therefore more likely to inquire into the harm inflicted than into whether the injury was the result of active or passive misconduct.
Even "willfulness" is not always relevant. For instance, a lawyer who commingles client funds and personal funds should expect to be at risk for major sanctions, regardless of whether he did it with noble intentions or even completely accidentally.