On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility
Terry and Farrell, Associate Judges, and Reilly, Senior Judge.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam
Respondent, a member of the bar of Maryland and of this court, was brought before the Court of Appeals of Maryland in two separate disciplinary actions. He was suspended from the practice of law in Maryland in the first action, as the result of complaints by four separate clients. He was found to have committed neglect, misrepresentation, failure to return client property and failure to carry out a contract of employment. In the second action, concerning four other clients, he was found guilty of similar misconduct and was disbarred.
Upon being notified of the outcome of both Maryland proceedings, this court suspended respondent and ordered him to show cause before the Board on Professional Responsibility as to why identical discipline should not be imposed in this jurisdiction. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(d). Respondent did not respond to the show cause order. *fn1 The Board then filed a report recommending that this court disbar respondent. Respondent has filed no objection.
Upon examination of this report and the record on which it was based, we accept the findings of the Board and adopt its recommendations. Such report is appended to this decision.
Accordingly, respondent is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in this jurisdiction and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys authorized to practice before this court.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
BAR DOCKET NOS. 47-90 and 83-90
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
This is a reciprocal discipline matter in which we have before us two Maryland disciplinary actions against Respondent. In the first, Respondent was indefinitely suspended from practice in Maryland, with a right to apply for reinstatement after 90 days; in the second, he was disbarred.
On the basis of these disciplinary actions, the Court of Appeals suspended Respondent in this jurisdiction under Court Rule XI, Sec. 11(d), and directed Respondent to show cause before the Board why identical discipline should not be imposed here. Respondent did not respond to the show cause order, and has not otherwise appeared before the Board.
For the reasons discussed below, we recommend that reciprocal discipline be imposed in this case and that ...