E.g., In re Askew, 96 A.3d 52, 53–54, 62 (D.C. 2014) (imposing a six-month suspension with all but sixty days stayed for violations of Rules 1.1 (a) and (b), 1.3 (a), 1.4 (a) and (b), 1.16 (d), 3.4 (c), and 8.4 (d) where the attorney "intentional[ly] and virtually complete[ly] neglect[ed] ... her court-appointed client"); In re Thai, 987 A.2d 428, 429–31 (D.C. 2009) (imposing a suspension of sixty days with thirty days stayed in favor of one year of probation for violations of Rules 1.1 (a) and (b), 1.3 (a) and (c), 1.4 (a), and 1.16 (d) in representing a client in an immigration matter).In determining an appropriate sanction, all cases turn on the totality of circumstances that are presented, and no two cases will be exactly alike.

See, e.g., In re Thai, 987 A.2d 428, 428–31 (D.C.2009) (per curiam) (sixty-day suspension, legal education courses, and restitution for failing to turn over client files and provide competent representation); In re Ryan, 670 A.2d 375, 381 (D.C.2006) (four-month suspension, restitution, and a fitness requirement for neglecting clients, ignoring deadlines, refusing to return client files, and making misrepresentations to Bar Counsel).In accordance with our procedures in uncontested disciplinary cases, we have reviewed the Hearing Committee's report and recommendation, and we agree with it. Accordingly, it is hereby