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 8

- B G

- 5 08
I N R E L E SLIE A RNOLD T HOMPSON , R ESPONDENT

. A Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 4 7338 8 ) On Report and Recommendation o f the Board on Professional Responsibility

(B DN 201

- 1 5 ) ( Decided October 18 , 201 8 )
Before F ISHER and T HOMPSON , Associate Judges , and N EBEKER , Senior Judge

. P ER C URIAM : T he Board on Professional Responsibility concurred with the
Ad Hoc Hearing Committee’s findings that respondent Leslie Arnold Thompson
had violated Rule 8.4 (d) of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct and D.C. Bar R. XI, § 2 (b)(3) because he “ delayed in responding to Disciplinary Counsel’s inquiry letter regarding a disciplinary complaint, failed to respond to a subpoena duces tecum for his client file and his financial records, and
failed to c omply with a [ c ] ourt order compelling him to respond to Disciplinary Counsel’s subpoena. ” The Board also agreed that respondent should be suspended2

for thirty days. H owever, unlike the Committee, the Board recommended that respondent be required to show fitness as a condition for reinstatement to the practice of law

.

A key reason the Hearing Committee did not recommend a fitness requirement was that respondent’s misconduct occurred in a single matter. However, on December 21, 2017, respondent was temp orarily suspended pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 3 (c) after he failed to respond to Disciplinary Counsel’s requests for information in a separate disciplinary investigation. The Board noted
that this suspension was not known when the Committee issued its report and that “[t]he premise on which the Hearing Committee based its analysis has been overcome by events.” T he Board found that it could consider this new fact and
that the repetitive nature of respondent’s misconduct provided clear and

c onvincing evidence that cast a serious doubt upon respondent’s continuing fitness to practice law. See, e.g. , In re Guberman , 978 A.2d 200 (D.C. 2009); In re Cater , 887 A.2d 1 (D.C. 2005).

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 also3

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

. . . there are no excepti ons to the Board’s report and recommendation, our deferential standard of review becomes even more deferential.”). M r
. Thompson has not participated in any phase of this disciplinary action , and he has failed to file either a response to the court’s order to show cause or exceptions to the Board ’s R eport and
Recommendation. We t herefore consider the underlying factual findings to be

un contested

. T he record supports the findings of misconduct accepted by the Board, and w e discern no re ason to depart from the Board’s recommendation to impose a thirty

- day suspension with a fitness requirement

.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Leslie Arnold Thompson is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for thirty days and his reinstatement is

con ditioned on a showing of fitness . F or purposes of reinstatem ent the period of respondent’s suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files a n affidavit that complies with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g)

.

So ordered.