In re Siegel

666 A.2d 62, 1995 D.C. App. LEXIS 193, 1995 WL 594961

• Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 5, 1995
• Docket: No. 94-BG-1655
• Status: Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility that respondent, already the subject of a six-month suspension with a requirement of proof of fitness as a condition of reinstatement, see In re Siegel, 635 A.2d 345 (D.C.1993),¹ be suspended for an additional month because of an additional incident of neglect of client matters occurring in the roughly contemporaneous time-frame of the incidents underlying the six-month suspension, and respondent having filed no exception thereto,² it is

ORDERED that respondent is suspended from the practice of law in this jurisdiction for an additional month, to be served consecutively to the existing six-month suspension, and shall be required to prove fitness as a condition of reinstatement.

1 . As of the date of the Board's Report and Recommendation, respondent had failed to file an affidavit pursuant to D.C.App. R. XI, § 14(g), and hence, for purposes of reinstatement, the six-month period had not yet begun to run under D.C.App. R. XI, § 16(c).

2 . Indeed, as in the prior disciplinary matter, respondent has not participated in the instant proceedings in any way at any level.