of professional conduct. While Bar Counsel’s argument is not without merit that the above mentioned violations call for a doubling of respondent’s suspension from eighteen months to three years, we decline to deviate from the recommendation of the Board in this case. The Board’s recommended length of suspension would not create inconsistencies within our case law. This is not respondent’s first violation of the rules governing attorney conduct. Looking to prior cases, we are satisfied that the eighteen-month suspension is well within the range of an acceptable disposition. We have held that a one-year suspension was justified for an attorney who had a similar history but whose violations were less serious than those in the present case. See In re O’Donnell, 517 A.2d 1069 (D.C.1986) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, we have handed down suspensions
holding that an adverseinference jury instruction was an appropriate sanction for spoliation of evidence holding that sanction appropriate for an attorney who failed to take action relating to a restaurants lease agreement and liquor license holding that disbarment was the appropriate sanction for an attorney who converted partnership money to his own use without authorization and without disclosure to his other partners holding that disbarment was the appropriate sanction where an attorney misappropriated funds from his real estate partners holding that disbarment was the appropriate sanction for an attorneys repeated material misrepresentations