Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 24-BG-1013 IN RE LYNN BURKE, RESPONDENT.

A Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 1006423) On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (BDN: 21-BD-009; DDNs: 2014-D303, 2017-D266, 2018-D102, 2018-D325 & 2022-D134) (Decided: February 27, 2025) Before: BECKWITH and SHANKER, Associate Judges, and STEADMAN, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM: The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that Lynn Burke be suspended from the practice of law for two years with reinstatement conditioned upon a showing of fitness and payment of restitution based on its finding that she violated D.C. R. Pro. Conduct 1.5(a) and (b), 1.15(a) and (b), 1.16(d), 5.5(a), 7.1(a), 7.5(a), and 8.4(c); North Carolina R. Pro. Conduct 1.4(a) and (b), and 7.1; and Maryland R. Pro. Conduct 19-301.3(a). Respondent has not filed any exceptions to the Board’s Report and Recommendation.

Under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(h)(2), “if no exceptions are filed to the Board’s report, the [c]ourt will enter an order imposing the discipline recommended by the Board upon the expiration of the time permitted for filing exceptions.” See also In re Viehe, 762 A.2d 542, 543 (D.C. 2000) (“When . . . there are no exceptions to the Board’s report and recommendation, our deferential standard of review becomes even more deferential.”). Because no exceptions have been filed and we agree that the Board’s recommended sanction is reasonable and appropriate for the violations presented here,1 we accept the recommendation that respondent be suspended for two years with reinstatement conditioned on demonstrating fitness to practice law and payment of restitution. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that respondent Lynn Burke is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for two years, with reinstatement conditioned on demonstrating fitness to practice law and payment of restitution. Respondent’s attention is directed to the requirements of D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 14 and their effect on eligibility for reinstatement. See D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 16(c).

So ordered.

See In re Edwards, 278 A.3d 1171, 1174-75 (D.C. 2022) (imposing sanction of two-year suspension and fitness requirement for violation of Rules 1.15(a) and 8.4(c), “severe and pervasive” lack of recordkeeping, and “prior censure for strikingly similar misconduct”).