Full Opinion

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. 26-BG-0370 IN RE GREGORY KRASOVSKY, RESPONDENT. A Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 501333) On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (BDN No. 25-BD-039; DDN No. 2024-D181) (Decided September 10, 2026) Before MCLEESE and SHANKER, Associate Judges, and GLICKMAN, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM: The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that Gregory Krasovsky be suspended from the practice of law for thirty days with reinstatement conditioned upon a showing of fitness based on its finding that he violated D.C. R. Pro. Conduct 3.4(c), 8.1(b), and 8.4(d), and D.C. Bar R. XI, § 2(b)(3). Respondent has not filed any exceptions to the Board’s Report and Recommendation. 2 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 In re Viehe, 762 A.2d 542, 543 (D.C. 2000) (per curiam) (“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 thirty days with reinstatement conditioned on demonstrating fitness to practice law. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that respondent Gregory Krasovsky is hereby suspended from the practice of law in this jurisdiction for thirty days, with reinstatement after he has served the thirty-day suspension conditioned on demonstrating fitness to practice law. Absent such a showing, respondent’s suspension shall remain in effect 1 See, e.g., In re Daniels, 299 A.3d 541, 542 (D.C. 2023) (per curiam) (imposing sanction of thirty-day suspension and fitness requirement for violations of, inter alia, D.C. R. Pro. Conduct 8.1(b) and 8.4(d), and D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 2(b)(3), after respondent failed to follow Disciplinary Counsel’s instructions despite a Board order); In re Thompson, 195 A.3d 64, 64 (D.C. 2018) (per curiam) (imposing sanction of thirty-day suspension and fitness requirement for violations of D.C. R. Pro. Conduct 8.4(d) and D.C. Bar R. XI, § 2(b)(3), after respondent failed to respond to Disciplinary Counsel’s subpoena or comply with the court’s order compelling a response). 3 indefinitely. 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.