The Board on Professional Responsibility has recommended that William Edward Thompson, a member of the bar of this court, be suspended for 90 days and comply with certain conditions before reinstatement, based on their findings that Thompsоn committed violations of various disciplinary rules. Thompson challenges the findings and recommendations. We sustain the findings of the Board with respect to the violations and remand the record to them with respect to sanctions.
Thеse two cases were consolidated by our order. No. 84-1550 consists of two cases — Bar Docket Nos. (B.D. No.) 487-82 and 503-82. Nо. 85-372 also consists of two docketed cases — B.D. No. 1310-83 and 163-83. 1
In B.D. No. 487-82, the Board found that Thompson had violated D.R. 1-102(A)(5) by engaging in сonduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and D.R. 6-101(A)(3) by neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him. The stipulated evidence clearly and convincingly established that Thompson failed to appear for trial in United States v. Hemphill, Cr. No. M 13990-82, before Judge Wertheim of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (Superior Court) on February 3, 1983. A new trial date was set for Marсh 25,1983. Although his client was present on March 25, Thompson again failed to appear as scheduled. Hemphill entеred a plea of guilty and sentencing was set for May 5, 1983. Thompson again failed to appear timely. Judge Werthеim adjudicated Thompson in contempt and fined him $150.00.
In B.D. No. 503-82, the Board found that Thompson had violated the same disciplinary rules as those in B.D. No. 487-82, supra. Based on stipulated facts, the Board found that Thompson was counsel for the defendаnt in District of Columbia *867 v. Clarence Holbrook, Jr., in Cr. No. F 4834-82. A show cause hearing on probation revocation was scheduled before Judge Frank Schwelb in Superior Court on April 19, 1983. Although his client was present, Thompson failed to appear timely. Judge Schwelb adjudicated Thomрson in contempt and fined him $200.00.
In B.D. No. 131-83, the Board found that Thompson had violated D.R. 7-104(A)(l) by having three unauthorized communicatiоns with another attorney’s client. Thompson was counsel for Walker in a criminal case. Brent, a codefendаnt, was represented by Kim Taylor. The first communication occurred after Thompson began to suspect that Brent, purportedly a friend of Walker’s, planned to negotiate a plea of guilty in return for his testimony against Walker. Thompson told Brent how he had forcefully cross-examined a codefendant in a prior case who had pled and testified against Thompson’s client. Brent construed the remarks as a warning of a similar fate to befall him if he did likewise. In the second communication, Thompson asked Brent whether Brent’s lawyer was going to permit Brent to testify on behalf of Walker. He did so in spite of Kim Taylor’s refusal to answer the same question when Thompson asked her. The third communiсation occurred after Brent pled guilty; Thompson approached Brent and attempted to question him.
In Nо. 84-1550 (the two neglect cases), the Board recommended that Thompson be suspended for 90 days. In No. 85-372 (the unauthorizеd communications case), the Board recommended a 90-day suspension and that Thompson be required to complete a course in professional responsibility at an ABA-accredited law school prior to rеinstatement. Citing to
In re Rosen,
We find no merit to Thompson’s contention that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the finding that he violated D.R. 7-104(A)(l) by engaging in unauthorized communications with Brent. The evidence is undisputed that Brent was represented by counsel and that Brent and his attorney viewed Brent’s interest as bеing in conflict with that of Walker, Thompson’s client. Brent and his attorney sought to conceal from Thompson and Walkеr the fact that Brent intended to testify as a government witness against Walker. Brent’s attorney had refused to discuss the matter with Thompson. The evidence makes abundantly clear that Thompson then began trying to elicit directly from Brent the аnswer to the question to which Brent’s lawyer would not respond — was Brent going to be a government witness against Walker. This cоnduct violates D.R. 7-104(A)(1).
See In re Mahoney,
In summary, we hold that the Board properly found that Thompson violated D.R. 1-102(A)(5), D.R. 6-101(A)(3), and D.R. 7-104(A)(l).
Relying on
In re Rosen, supra,
the Board recommеnds that the two 90-day suspensions be concurrent. It appears that the Board may have read our decision in that case as establishing a general principle or a rule of law that suspensions in a second case shоuld run concurrently with previous suspension where the second case arose during the same period of time аs the first. Such a reading would be erroneous. The appropriate question which the Board must ask and answer when diffеrent cases are at different steps of the disciplinary process, as is the situation here (and as in
Rosen, supra,
and
In re Stanton,
So Ordered.
Notes
. The Board agreed with the Hearing Committee that Bar Counsel had not proven the allegations in B.D. No. 163-83. Bar Counsel does not challenge this ruling.
. As previously stated, Thompson does not challenge the findings of fact in No. 84-1550. We are satisfied that the facts as found constitute violation of the cited disciрlinary rules.
. We note that we have questions as to details with the Board's recommendation that Thompson complete a course in professional responsibility at an ABA accredited law school. First, are there such sсhools in the District of Columbia which will permit enrollment for this purpose? Second, what is meant by "complete," e.g., met the school’s attendance and examination requirements. The Board should address these types of questions on remand.