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. 2 3

- BG

- 0 454
I N R E D ENISE A. D ANIELS , R ESPONDENT

. A Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia (Bar Registration No. 399285 ) On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (Disciplinary Docket No. 2021

- D075) (Board Docket No. 22

- BD

- 014) ( Decided August 10 , 20 2 3 )
Before : B ECKWITH and A LI K HAN , Associate Judges , and W ASHINGTON , Senior Judge

. P ER C URIAM : T he Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that
Denise A. Daniels be suspended from the practice of law for 30 days with reinstatement conditioned upon a showing of fitness

. T he Board found that

r espondent had communicated directly with a person known to be represented by counsel in two separate cases, violating D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 4.2(a) (two counts). During the course of the investigation into the charges, r espondent fa iled to respond to Disciplinary C ounsel ’s instructions despite a Board order directi ng her to do so;2

therefore, the Board also found that she violated Rule 8.1(b) (knowing failure to respond to Disciplinary Counsel), Rule 8.4(d) (serious interference with the administration of justice), and D.C. Bar R

. XI, § 2(b)(3) (failure to comply with a
Board o rder ). Respondent has not filed an y exception s to the Board’s Report and
Recommendation , nor has s he filed the required D.C. Bar R

. XI, § 14(g) affidavit
after the court imposed an interim suspension on July 17, 2023.

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 In re
Viehe , 762 A. 2d 5 42, 543 (D.C. 2000) (per curiam) (“When

. . . there are no exceptions to the Board’s report and recommendation, our deferential standard of review becomes even more deferential.”). Because no e xceptions have been filed
and because we agree that the Board’s recommended sanction is reasonable and appropriate for the violations presented here , 1 we accept the recommendation that

1 See In re Cooper , 936 A.2d 832, 833 , 835 (D.C. 2007) (per curiam) (imposing a 30

- day suspension with a fitness requirement for violations of D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 8.1(b) and 8.4(d) and D.C. Bar R. XI, § 2(b)(3) ); In re Rogers , 112 A.3d 923 , 924 (D.C. 2015) (per curiam) (imposing a 90

- day suspension with a fitness requirement for violation s of Rule 4.2(a) and other rule s ); In re Roxborough , 692 A.2d 1379 , 1379 (D.C. 1997) (per curiam) (imposing a 60

- day suspension with
a fitness requirement for violation s of Rule 4.2(a) and other rule s ).3
respondent be suspended for 30 days with reinstatement conditioned upon a showing
of fitness

. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that respondent Denise A. Daniels is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Col umbia for 30 days , with reinstatement
conditioned upon a showing of fitness

. Additionally, we direct respondent’s
attention to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g)

— which requires the filing of an affidavit with this court for purposes of reinstatement in accordance with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16

— and Board Prof. Resp. R. 9.

So ordered.