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. 18-BG-508

IN RE LESLIE ARNOLD THOMPSON, RESPONDENT.

A Suspended Member of the Bar

of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

(Bar Registration No. 473388)

On Report and Recommendation

of the Board on Professional Responsibility

(BDN 201-15)

(Decided October 18, 2018)

Before FISHER and THOMPSON, Associate Judges, and NEBEKER, Senior

Judge.

PER CURIAM: The 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 comply with a [c]ourt order compelling him to respond to Disciplinary 

Counsel’s subpoena.” The Board also agreed that respondent should be suspended 
2

for thirty days. However, 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 temporarily 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.” The Board found that it could consider this new fact and 

that the repetitive nature of respondent’s misconduct provided clear and 

convincing 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 permitted for filing exceptions.” See also 
3

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.”). Mr. 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 Report and 

Recommendation. We therefore consider the underlying factual findings to be

uncontested. The record supports the findings of misconduct accepted by the 

Board, and we discern no reason 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 

conditioned on a showing of fitness. For purposes of reinstatement the period of 

respondent’s suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files an 

affidavit that complies with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g).

So ordered.