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 volum es go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 02-BG-349 IN RE G REG S. F RIEDMAN, R ESPONDENT. A Member of the Bar of the District of C olumbia Court of A ppeals On Report and Recommendation of the Board o n Professio nal Respo nsibility (Submitted February 12, 2004 Decided March 4, 2004) Before TERRY and R UIZ, Associate Judges, and F ERREN, Senior Judge. P ER C URIAM: This disciplinary matter comes before the court on the report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (â Boardâ ) that reciprocal discipline be imposed on respondent, Greg S. Friedman, as a result of discipline imposed by the Court of Appeals of Maryland suspending respondent for six months. The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland initiated an investigation into an allegation that respon dent mis represented certain facts to the M aryland Circuit Cou rt concerning the reason for his absence from a pretrial conference in a Circuit Court case. During the course of the investigation, respondent voluntarily acknowledged that he made a false statement to the court and opp osing cou nsel, which he then rep eated to B ar Coun sel. Specifically, respondent falsely represented that a subpoena had been improvidently prepared and issued by a law student in respondentâ s office, when in truth, it had been prepared and 2 issued by respon dentâ s client. 1 On January 24, 2002, the Court of Appeals of Maryland accepted a joint petition from respondent and Maryland Bar Counsel acknowledging the misrepresentation and requesting a six-month suspension by consent. Upon being notified by responde nt of the M aryland su spension, th is court susp ended res ponden t from the practice of law in the District of Columbia pending final resolution of this proceeding pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, Â§ 11 (d) on April 16, 2002. On November 13, 2003, we granted respondentâ s motion vacating the interim suspension. Upon review of respondentâ s Maryland disciplinary record, Bar Counsel recommended that identical reciprocal discipline in the form of a six-month suspension be imposed on respondent in the District of Columbia. Respondent did not reply to Bar Counselâ s proposal or otherwise object to the imposition of identical reciprocal discipline before the Bo ard. On June 25, 2003, the Board filed its report and rec omm endation w ith the court, which also recommended imposition of a suspension of six months as identical reciprocal discipline, to co mme nce wh en respon dent files his D .C. Bar R . XI, Â§ 14 (g ) affidavit. 1 Respondent was unaware that his client had procured a blank, signed subpoena, completed it, and caused it to be sent and served upon a witness. Respondent discovered what his client had done only after he received a m otion for a protective order filed by opposing counsel. Upon learning about the subpoena, responde nt withdrew it within thirty minutes. In doing so, however, respondent invented the fictitious law student and repeated this false hood to the cou rt and M aryland Bar C ounse l in orde r to shield his clien t. 3 Respondent does not contest the nature of the ethical violation or argue that he should not serve a six-m onth recipro cal suspen sion here fo r his Mary land misc onduct. We therefore impose the identical reciprocal discipline recommended by the Board in its report and recom mend ation. See In re Zilberberg, 612 A .2d 832 , 834 (D .C. 199 2). ORDERED that Greg S. Friedman is suspended from the practice of law in the District of C olumbia for a period of six months . This suspension is ordered nunc pro tunc to May 5, 200 3, the date respondent filed the a ffidavit required by D.C . Bar R. XI, Â§ 14 (g). 2 Because respondent was suspended on an interim basis until November 13, 2003, the sixmonth suspension has been satisfied. So ordered. 2 Respondent did not file his affidavit with the Board as required by Â§ 14 (g). The record shows that respondent filed the affidavit with this court on May 5, 2003, and subseque ntly filed a copy with the B oard on June 30 , 2003. Given B ar Counselâ s recommendation that the suspension be imposed nunc pro tunc, we will treat respondentâ s original affidavit as having been filed with the Board o n the date it w as filed with th is court. See In re Breiner, 742 A.2d 886 , 887 n. 2 (D.C. 199 9).