On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility
Before Ferren and Steadman, Associate Judges, and Mack, Senior Judge.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam
PER CURIAM: This disciplinary matter is before the court on the report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility ("Board"), to which respondent has filed no exception with us, that respondent be suspended for a period of thirty days, but staying the execution of suspension; be placed on unmonitored probation for one year, with two conditions of probation: that respondent not be found in contempt of court for failing to appear for conduct occurring since the date this discipline is imposed, and that respondent be ordered to complete a continuing legal education course on professional responsibility and so certify to the Board. The factual and procedural history of this matter are set forth in the Report and Recommendation of the Board, which we incorporate by reference and attach hereto as an appendix.
We review the Board's recommendation in accordance with D.C. App. R. XI § 9 (g) (1993): "The Court shall accept the findings of fact made by the Board unless they are unsupported by substantial evidence of record, and shall adopt the recommended Disposition of the Board unless to do so would foster a tendency toward inconsistent Dispositions for comparable conduct or would otherwise be unwarranted." See In re Hutchinson, 534 A.2d 919, 924 (D.C. 1987) (en banc). We conclude that the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record and that the Board's recommended sanction is warranted and is not inconsistent with previous Dispositions for comparable conduct. See In re Evans, No. M-126-82 (D.C. Dec. 17, 1982) (thirty-day suspension appropriate for engaging in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of Justice by failing to appear for two scheduled court appearances).
Accordingly, to commence within thirty days from the date of this opinion, respondent shall be suspended from the practice of law for a period of thirty days, D.C. App. R. XI, § 3 (a)(2) (1993), but this suspension shall be stayed and instead respondent shall be placed on unmonitored probation for a period of one year, D.C. App. R. XI, § 3 (a)(7) (1993), conditioned upon the following terms:
(a) respondent shall not be found in contempt of court for failing to appear for conduct occurring since the date this discipline is imposed; and
(b) respondent shall complete a continuing legal education course on professional responsibility and so certify to the Board. See In re Spaulding, 635 A.2d 343, 1993 D.C. App. LEXIS 312 (D.C. Dec. 22, 1993).
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Respondent was charged with two counts of violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct (seriously interfering with the administration of Justice), and violation of D.C. App. Rule XI, § 2(b)(3)(failure and refusal to ...