
    In re Steven H. HOFBERG, Respondent. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
    No. 00-BG-1372.
    District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
    Submitted Dec. 6, 2001.
    Decided Dec. 27, 2001.
    Before REID and WASHINGTON, Associate Judges, and NEBEKER, Senior Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Respondent Steven H. Hofberg was disbarred by the Court of Appeals of Maryland on October 11, 2000, for various acts of severe neglect and other misconduct in nine separate cases. That court noted that respondent engaged in “a disturbing pattern of incompetence; lack of diligence in pursuing a legal matter; failure to apprise his clients of their legal matters and otherwise advise them timely and appropriately about those legal matters; failure to account for funds and property entrusted to him in a fiduciary capacity; and a practice of dissembling to both his clients and to the disciplinary agency charged with the investigation of his actions oven- a period of time.”

Respondent’s disbarment was reported to this court, and on October 30, 2000, we temporarily suspended him pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(d), and referred the matter to the Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”). The Board now recommends that respondent be disbarred as reciprocal discipline. Bar Counsel does not oppose the Board’s recommendation. Respondent did not participate in the proceedings before the Board and has not filed any exceptions to the Board’s recommendation.

The record in this case does not reveal any of the conditions enumerated in D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(c), that might make reciprocal disbarment inappropriate. Given the rebuttable presumption in favor of identical reciprocal discipline, see In re Zilberberg, 612 A.2d 832, 834 (D.C.1992), and our heightened deference to the Board when its recommendation is unopposed, see In re Goldsborough, 654 A.2d 1285 (D.C.1995), and D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(f), we adopt the Board’s recommendation. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Steven H. Hofberg is disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia forthwith. We note that respondent has not filed the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g); thus, we direct respondent’s attention to the requirements of that rule and their effect on his eligibility for reinstatement. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16(c).

So ordered. 
      
      . Respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 1.5(a), 1.15(a), 1.15(b), 1.16(d), 8.1(b), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, and § 10-306 of the Business Occupations and Professions Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland.
     