On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility.
Before Ferren and Steadman, Associate Judges, and Reilly, Senior Judge.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam
PER CURIAM: This is a reciprocal discipline proceeding. It stems from Respondent's suspension of sixty days imposed by the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board. Upon notice to us of that suspension in Virginia, we entered an order, pursuant to our D.C. App. R. XI, § 11(d), on March 6, 1991, suspending Respondent from the practice of law in our jurisdiction pending a recommendation from the Board on Professional Responsibility. Upon the unopposed motion of Respondent, whose suspension in the District had already exceeded that imposed by Virginia, we lifted that suspension on June 5, 1991. *fn1 On June 17, 1991, the Board recommended to us that no discipline be imposed. Neither Bar Counsel nor Respondent has made any appearance before us.
In these circumstances, we see no reason to take issue with the Board's recommendation. On the limited record before it, the Board could conclude that Respondent's "heavy-handed attempts to collect delinquent legal fees" did not demonstrate dishonesty or deceit in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4), at least, we might add, not to warrant an extended suspension, and that Respondent's inadvertent deposit of client funds in his personal account, in violation of DR 9-103(A), did not exceed simple commingling, *fn2 for which our sanction in the past has typically been public censure. See, e.g., In re Ingram, 584 A.2d 602, 603 (D.C. 1991).
Virginia determined that Respondent's conduct in that state warranted a suspension of sixty days. Our Board similarly observed, without Dissent, that "if we were to impose discipline, it would not exceed the 90-day suspension that Respondent has already served [in the District]." We accept the recommendation of the Board and close the file on this proceeding.