Before Schwelb and Reid, Associate Judges, and Mack, Senior Judge.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.
On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility
On January 30, 1989, Carl P. Fogel was disbarred following his conviction for receiving embezzled property. Fogel had also suborned perjured testimony during a client's trial, and he used the false testimony in presenting his closing argument.
On September 13, 1993, Fogel filed his first petition for reinstatement. This petition was denied by this court in In re Fogel, 679 A.2d 1052 (D.C. 1996) (Fogel I). Relying on the findings of a Hearing Committee and the report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility, we held in Fogel I that Fogel had failed to meet his burden of showing that reinstatement was warranted.
On January 26, 1998, Fogel filed a second petition for reinstatement. On this occasion, the Hearing Committee recommended that Fogel be reinstated. On December 23, 1998, in its report and recommendation, a copy of which is attached hereto, the Board on Professional Responsibility agreed with the Hearing Committee's assessment and, after applying the "Roundtree" factors, *fn1 recommended that this court order Fogel's reinstatement.
On December 29, 1998, the Office of Bar Counsel advised the court that it takes no exception to the Board's recommendation. Under these circumstances, the scope of our review is deferential. "Because [Bar Counsel] has not filed any exceptions to the Board's report and recommendation, this court's already considerable deference to the Board's determination . . . is enhanced." In re Hoare, ___ A.2d ___, No. 96-BG-975, slip op. at 2-3 (D.C. March 18, 1999) (per curiam) (citations omitted). Giving great weight, as we must, to the Board's findings and recommendation, Fogel I, supra, 679 A.2d at 1054, we conclude that Fogel has shown, by clear and convincing evidence,
"1. that he has the moral qualifications, competency, and learning in law for readmission; and"
"2. that his resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the Bar, or to the administration of Justice, or subversive to the public interest."
See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16 (d). Accordingly, and substantially for the reasons stated by the Board, Carl P. Fogel is reinstated to the practice of law in this jurisdiction.