Case Name: In re James O'DONNELL, Respondent
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1986-11-26
Citations: 517 A.2d 1069
Docket Number: No. 86-1011
Parties: In re James O’DONNELL, Respondent.
Judges: Before NEWMAN, TERRY, and ROGERS, Associate Judges.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 517
Pages: 1069–1073

Head Matter:
In re James O’DONNELL, Respondent.
No. 86-1011.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Submitted Oct. 28, 1986.
Decided Nov. 26, 1986.
Elizabeth A. Kohlman, Asst. Bar Counsel, and Thomas H. Henderson, Jr., Bar Counsel, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
James O’Donnell, Washington, D.C., pro se.
Before NEWMAN, TERRY, and ROGERS, Associate Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Board on Professional Responsibility found respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(5) for failure to respond to Bar Counsel's inquiries; DR 6-101(A)(3) for neglecting to form a corporation and to file on behalf of the corporation an application for a liquor license within the specified time, and DR 7-101(A)(l) for deliberate and conscious failure to seek the lawful objectives of his clients despite his full awareness of the extent of those objectives. Respondent has not filed a brief before this court. We have reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Board and find its findings are supported by substantial evidence of record. In re Morris, 495 A.2d 1162, 1163 (D.C.1985); D.C. Rules Governing the Bar, Rule XI, § 7(3). Accordingly, we adopt the Board's findings, which are attached as an appendix to this opinion.
The Board has recommended that respondent be suspended for a year and a day, and that he be required to make restitution of the retainer of $1000 to his clients. This court "shall adopt the recommended disposition of the Board unless to do so would foster a tendency toward inconsistent dispositions for comparable conduct or otherwise would be unwarranted." In re Morris, supra, 495 A.2d at 1163; D.C. Rules Governing the Bar, Rule XI, § 7(3). This sanction is in accordance with sanctions imposed in comparable cases. E.g., In re Roundtree, 467 A.2d 143, 148 (D.C.1983); In re Fogel, 422 A.2d 966 (D.C.1980).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that respondent shall be suspended for a year and a day, and shall make restitution to his clients of $1000. This order shall take effect thirty days from the date of this opinion.
So ordered.