In 2018, Mr. Tun was suspended for one year for lying on a motion to recuse. See In re Tun (Tun II), 195 A.3d 65, 68-72 (D.C. 2018). The motion, which Mr. Tun filed while the Tun I proceedings were ongoing, falsely stated that the Tun I investigation had concluded without any disciplinary action being instituted against him.

In 2018, Mr. Tun was suspended for one year for lying on a motion to recuse. SeeIn re Tun (Tun II ), 195 A.3d 65, 68-72 (D.C. 2018). The motion, which Mr. Tun filed while the Tun I proceedings were ongoing, falsely stated that the Tun I investigation had concluded without any disciplinary action being instituted against him.

testimony, which precluded Disciplinary Counsel from proving misappropriation was reckless); In re Kline , 11 A.3d 261, 264 (D.C. 2011) (Hearing Committee credited respondent's belief that the money he withdraw from a trust account belonged to him, which precluded a finding of intentional misappropriation); In re Mba-Jonas , 993 A.2d 1071, 1073 (D.C. 2010) ("factual and credibility determinations in the Maryland proceedings" precluded a finding of intentional or reckless misappropriation); In re Pye , 57 A.3d 960, 973 (D.C. 2012) (adopting appended Board report) (Hearing Committee's conclusion that misappropriation "was a mistake based on its assessment of Respondent's credibility" compelled finding of negligence where Board had "no basis to question the Hearing Committee's credibility determination"). With that said, as we recently observed in In re Tun , "in some circumstances, a Hearing Committee's finding as to a respondent's credibility ‘does not warrant the normal deference.’ " 195 A.3d 65, 73 (D.C. 2018) (quoting In re Anderson , 778 A.2d 330, 341-42 (D.C. 2001) ). In re Tun highlighted two such scenarios.

Additionally, we defer to the discipline recommended by the Board "unless to do so would foster a tendency toward inconsistent dispositions for comparable conduct or would otherwise be unwarranted." In re Tun , 195 A.3d 65, 74 (D.C. 2018) (quoting D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9 (h)(1)). The Board reviews the factual findings of the Hearing Committee using the same standard, "adopting the Hearing Committee's findings when they are based upon substantial record evidence."

Having reviewed the Committee's recommendation in accordance with our procedures in uncontested disciplinary cases, see D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(d), we agree that this case is appropriate for negotiated discipline and that "the agreed-upon sanction is ‘justified,’ " In re Mensah , 262 A.3d 1100, 1104 (D.C. 2021) (per curiam) (quoting D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(c)(3)), in light of reasonably analogous precedents for false statements made to governmental entities. See, e.g. , In re Hutchinson , 534 A.2d 919 (D.C. 1987) (en banc); In re Thompson , 538 A.2d 247 (D.C. 1987) (per curiam); In re Cerroni , 683 A.2d 150 (D.C. 1996) (per curiam); In re Bowser , 771 A.2d 1002 (D.C. 2001) (per curiam); In re Belardi , 891 A.2d 224 (D.C. 2006) (per curiam); In re Rigas , 9 A.3d 494 (D.C. 2010) ; In re Tun , 195 A.3d 65 (D.C. 2018) ; In re Clinesmith , 258 A.3d 161 (D.C. 2021) (per curiam); see alsoMensah , 262 A.3d at 1104 ("[T]he sanctions imposed in negotiated-discipline cases may in some cases be less stringent than would otherwise have been appropriate in a contested-discipline case."). Accordingly, it is

With respect to the Board's recommended sanction, we defer to the Board's recommendation unless doing so "would foster a tendency toward inconsistent dispositions for comparable conduct or would otherwise be unwarranted." In re Ekekwe-Kauffman , 210 A.3d 775, 785 (D.C. 2019) (quoting In re Tun , 195 A.3d 65, 74 (D.C. 2018) ). A. Rule 1.15(d) Violation

In a disciplinary case, Disciplinary Counsel must establish a rule violation by clear and convincing evidence. In re Tun , 195 A.3d 65, 72 (D.C. 2018). This court accepts the factual findings of the Board "if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record.