Case Name: In re Arthur M. REYNOLDS, Jr., Respondent. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1994-11-07
Citations: 649 A.2d 818
Docket Number: No. 92-BG-1492
Parties: In re Arthur M. REYNOLDS, Jr., Respondent. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Judges: Before TERRY, FARRELL and SULLIVAN, Associate Judges.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 649
Pages: 818–825

Head Matter:
In re Arthur M. REYNOLDS, Jr., Respondent. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
No. 92-BG-1492.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Submitted Nov. 9, 1993.
Decided Nov. 7, 1994.
Leonard H. Becker, Bar Counsel, Washington, DC, with whom Michael S. Frisch, Asst. Bar Counsel, was on the brief, for the Office of Bar Counsel.
Arthur M. Reynolds, Jr., pro se.
Before TERRY, FARRELL and SULLIVAN, Associate Judges.

Opinion:
Opinion for the court
PER CURIAM.
Concurring opinion by Judge FARRELL, with whom TERRY, Associate Judge, joins, at page 3.
Separate statement by Judge SULLIVAN at page-.
PER CURIAM:
This disciplinary matter is before the court on the report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (the Board), to which respondent and Bar Counsel concur, that the reciprocal case against appellant should be dismissed. The factual and procedural history of this matter are set forth in the Report and Recommendation of the Board, which we incorporate by reference and attach hereto as an appendix. Three members of the Board dissented in a separate opinion which is also attached.
We review the Board's recommendation in accordance with D.C.App.R. XI, § 9(g) (1993), which provides, in part, as follows:
the Court shall accept the findings of fact made by the Board unless they are unsupported by substantial evidence of record, and shall adopt the recommended disposition of the Board unless to do so would foster a tendency toward inconsistent dispositions for comparable conduct or would otherwise be unwarranted.
Id. See also In re Hutchinson, 534 A.2d 919, 924 (D.C.1987). Substantially for the reasons set forth in the report, we conclude that the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record and that the Board's recommendation is appropriate. Accordingly, the disciplinary proceedings commenced against Arthur M. Reynolds, Jr. are hereby dismissed.
So ordered.