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. 24-BG-0498

IN RE KRISTOPHER E. TWOMEY, RESPONDENT. 

A Suspended Member of the Bar

of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

(Bar Registration No. 979338) 

On Report and Recommendation

of the Board on Professional Responsibility

(BDN: 23-BD-013; DDN 2021-198 & DDN 2022-119) 

(Decided August 29, 2024) 

Before: BECKWITH and MCLEESE, Associate Judges, and RUIZ, Senior Judge. 

PER CURIAM: The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that 

respondent Kristopher E. Twomey be suspended from the practice of law for two

years. Specifically, the Board found that Mr. Twomey, whose practice involves

regulatory issues regarding internet-service providers, affirmatively gave false 

assurances to two clients regarding the status of their eligible telecommunication 

carrier (“ETC”) applications filed in four states, including (1) creating a false docket 

number for a California application to cover up that he had not timely filed it, which 

caused another attorney working on the application to repeat that false statement to 
2 

the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) and (2) instructing a client to 

repeat his false claim to the FCC that the Tennessee authority had declined 

jurisdiction by returning his application, when he in truth never filed it, violating 

D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 4.1(a) and 8.4(c). Further, but less material to the 

recommended sanction, the Board found that Mr. Twomey ought to have kept his 

clients better informed about the work he was doing for them and the prospect that 

significant deadlines might not be met, violating D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3(c) and 

1.4(a) and (b). Mr. Twomey has not filed any exceptions to the Board’s Report. 

Mr. Twomey also has not yet filed the required D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit 

after his July 17, 2024, interim suspension in this case. 

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 permitted for filing exceptions.” See also In 

re Viehe, 762 A.2d 542, 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.”). Because no exceptions have been filed and we agree that 

the Board’s recommended sanction is reasonable and appropriate for the violations 
3 

presented here,

1 we accept the recommendation that Mr. Twomey be suspended for 

two years. 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Kristopher E. Twomey is hereby suspended from the practice 

of law in the District of Columbia for two years. Mr. Twomey’s attention is directed

to the requirements of D.C. Bar. R. IX, § 14 and their effect on eligibility for 

reinstatement. See D.C. Bar. R. IX, § 16(c). 

So ordered.

1

 In re Guberman, 978 A.2d 200, 203-04, 215 (D.C. 2009) (imposing an eighteenmonth suspension where attorney falsely represented to his superiors that he had 

filed an appeal on behalf of a client, falsified filing stamps on the purported appeal 

papers in the client file, and provided misleading status reports on the client’s matter 

in a year-long pattern of dishonesty, where there were several mitigating factors); In 

re Steele, 868 A.2d 146, 153-54 (D.C. 2005) (imposing three-year suspension with 

fitness requirement where solo practitioner with no disciplinary history neglected 

five clients to their detriment and was dishonest with clients, tribunals, and other 

lawyers); In re Haupt, 422 A.2d 768, 769, 771-72 (D.C. 1980) (per curiam) 

(imposing three-year suspension where attorney told his client that client’s divorce 

complaint remained pending but inactive because client had not paid an expense, 

when in actuality the complaint had been dismissed and the attorney failed to take 

adequate steps to locate the defendant, and the attorney made false statements to 

Disciplinary Counsel, had a disciplinary history that involved deceit, and 

demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the ethical code).