The Board on Professional Responsibility found that respondent had neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation of Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3), and reprimanded him. The reprimand is final under D.C.Bar R. XI, § 3(5), and is not before this court for review.

What is before the court is the Board’s recommendation that, in addition to the reprimand, respondent be ordered to make restitution to his former client in the amount of $250.00. 1 Under Rule XI, § 3, restitution can be ordered only by the court, not by the Board.

Rule XI, § 7(3) requires us to accept the factual findings of the Board, which are essentially uncontested, and to “adopt the recommended disposition of the Board unless to do so would foster a tendency toward inconsjstent dispositions for comparable conduct or otherwise would be unwarranted.” Respondent offers no persuasive reason why he should not be required to make full restitution of the fee his client paid him, and we can discern none on this record. On the contrary, in a case involving similar facts, we have required an attorney to return the full amount of a fee to a client when the attorney’s neglect caused the client’s case to. be dismissed. In re Roundtree, 467 A.2d 143, 148 (D.C. 1983). In this case, as in Roundtree, we believe it is “equitable for [respondent] to make restitution, and not to require [the client] to bear any part of the loss.” Id. (citations omitted).

It is therefore ORDERED that respondent, Durward Taylor, within fourteen days from the date of this order, shall pay to Frances H. Thomas, his former client, the sum of $250.00.