||Respondent was reciprocally suspended for ninety days, based upon a like discipline imposed by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals by Opinion and Order decided October 27, 2005.
In the District of Columbia proceeding, the evidence established that in 1996, the Respondent had entered into a factoring agreement with a factoring business, the terms of which provided that Respondent would submit copies of voucher forms for court-appointed services she performed under the Criminal Justice Act to the factoring business, the factoring business would pay Respondent 80% of the amount claimed in the voucher, and Respondent would later endorse court-issued checks to the factoring business as repayment for the ďadvance.Ē During 1997-1998, Respondent submitted at least 27 vouchers to the factoring business that had not been submitted to the court for payment, and many of the vouchers, which contained a sworn statement that the voucher was true and correct, did not reflect what was later submitted to the court. In effect, Respondent received advance payment on vouchers that had not yet been submitted for payment, but which Respondent stated were pending payment by the court. Respondentís failure to repay the factoring business resulted in the closure of the business. In mitigation, Respondent submitted that during the relevant time period, she was having financial troubles in part attributable to delays in the courtís payment of CJA vouchers.