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.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 1 7

- B G

- 768

I N R E C AROLYN M A RDIS , R ESPONDENT

.
A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

(Bar Registration No. 97 4417 )
On Report and Recommendation O f the Board on Professional Responsibility ( D DN 540

- 09 & DDN 557

- 09 )
( Decided December 14 , 201 7 )

Before F ISHER and E ASTERLY , Associate Judges , and N EB E KER , Senior Judge

.

P ER C URIAM : In this case, the Board on Professional Responsibility has adopted Hearing Committee Four ’s uncontested findings that respondent Carolyn
Mardis violated the Rules of Professional Conduct in two separate unrelated
matters that were consolidated for resolution . In the first matter , the Board accepted the Committee’s findings that Ms. Mardis (1) conspired with others in a
fraudulent scheme to unlawful ly obtain the title to a property that was subject to a2

tax sale an d the reafter took possession of the owner’s personal property ; (2) when contacted by the owner , provided a false name , demanded payment as a condition for returning the property , and transferred some of the property to an auction house
for sale ; and (3) ma de misrepresentations to her law firm in an attempt to hide her actions and falsely testified under oath after she was sued by the owner of the property. In the second matter, the Board accepted the undisputed findings of the
Committee that Ms. Mardis fai led to inform a client of her fee or the scope of her representation and then commingled the advance fee without her client’s consent. In determining the appropriate sanction, t he Board accepted the Committee’s rejection of Ms. Mardis’s proffer of mitigat ing evidence pursuant to In re Kersey , 520 A.2d 321 (D.C. 1987)

.

In light of this record, the Board recommends that this court determine that
M s
. Mardis violated District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct 1. 5 (b),
1. 15 (a), 1. 7 (b)( 4), 3 .3 ( a ), 8

. 1 ( a ), 8.4 (b), 8.4 (c) and 8.4 (d). The Board further
recommends that M s
. Mardis be disbarred from the practice of law. Neither M s
. Mardis nor Disciplinary Counsel has filed an exception to the Board’s Report and
Recommendations.3

Under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9 (h)(2), “if no exceptions are filed to the Board’s report, the [c] ourt will enter an order imposing the discipline recommended by the Board upon the expiration of the time permit ted for filing exceptions.” See also In
re Viehe , 762 A. 2d 5 42, 543 (D.C. 2000) (“When

. . . there are no exceptions to the Board’s report and recommendation, our deferential standard of review becomes even more deferential.”). We discern no reason to depart from the Board’s recommendations, particularly in light of the B oard’s findings that Ms. Mardis engaged in fraud , committed theft , and then proffered perjured testimony. These findings justif

y the discipline recommended by the Board. See, e.g

. , In re Coles , 912 A.2d 1168 (D.C. 2006) (disbarment for fraud ) ; In re Till erson , 878 A.2d 1186 (D.C. 2005) ( dis barment for first

- degree theft ).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Carolyn Mardis is hereby disbarred from the practice of law
in the District of Columbia

. For the purposes of reinstatement Ms. Mardis ’s period of disbarment will not begin to run until such time as s he files an affidavit that fully complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g).4 So ordered.