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-0 498
I N R E K RISTOPHER E. T WOMEY , R ESPONDENT
. A S uspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 979338 )
On R eport and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility ( B DN: 23 -BD- 013 ; D DN 2021

- 198 & DDN 2022

- 119 ) ( D ecided August 29 , 20 24) Befor e: B ECKWITH and M C L EESE , Associate Judges , and R UIZ , Senior Judge

. P ER C URIAM : T he Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that respondent Kristopher E. Twomey be suspended from the practice of law for two
years. Spe c ifically, the Board found that Mr. Twomey , whose practice involves regulatory issues regarding internet

- service providers , affirmative ly gave false

assurances to two clients regarding the status of their eligibl e 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 wor king on the application to repeat that false statement to2

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 return ing 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 materia l 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 t hat significant deadlines might not be me t, violating D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3 (c) and
1.4 (a) and (b)

. Mr. Twomey has not filed an y exception s 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 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.”). Because no exceptions have been filed and we agree that the Board’s recommended sanction is reasonable and appropri ate for the violations3
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 Col umbia for two years. Mr. Twomey’s attention is directed to the requirements of D.C. Bar. R. IX, § 14 a nd their effect on eligibility for reinstatement. See D.C. Bar. R. IX, § 16(c).

So or dered.

1 In re Guberman , 978 A.2d 200, 203

- 04, 215 (D.C. 2009) (imposing an eighteen

month 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 sus pension 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).