DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

We have reviewed the Disciplinary Board’s findings of fact, application of the Rules of Professional Conduct to those facts, and recommended discipline. Upon review of the record filed herein, the objections and briefs filed by the parties, and oral argument, it is the decision of the Court that the Disciplinary Board’s recommended discipline be rejected, and that in *195lieu thereof a two-year suspension be ordered.

DECREE

ACCORDINGLY, WE ORDER, ADJUDGE, AND DECREE THAT CLAUDE P. BOUDREAUX, BE SUSPENDED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN THIS STATE FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF HIS ORIGINAL SUSPENSION, SEPTEMBER 5, 1990.

ALL COSTS OF THIS PROCEEDING ARE ASSESSED TO THE RESPONDENT.

TWO YEAR SUSPENSION ORDERED.

concurring.

Dennis, J., concurs in the determination that disciplinary action is in order but disagrees with the sanction imposed. This case is more analogous to LSBA v. O’Halloran, 412 So.2d 523 (La. 1982), in which this Court imposed a three year suspension based on the attorney’s convictions of income tax evasion for two years and the filing of a false return one year. Bou-dreaux was convicted of evading taxes for three years and the evidence indicates convincingly that he used a false social security number in his evasion. This case is clearly distinguishable from LSBA v. Schoemann, 444 So.2d 608 (La. 1984), relied on by the Disciplinary Board in its recommendation of lenity, because Shoeman evaded taxes for only one year and unlike Boudreaux offered extensive mitigating circumstantial evidence: serious health problems, attempted suicide, deep depression, divorce and loss of custody of his children.