||Respondent was suspended by the California Supreme Court in March of 2003 for misconduct occurring during the representation of a client. When Respondent failed to comply with a provision of the Order suspending her, additional disciplinary charges were filed. The second disciplinary action resulted in a May 2004 Order imposing an additional suspension on Respondent. Respondent failed to notify Pennsylvania of her California suspensions. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued a Rule to show Cause on Respondent to show cause why identical discipline should not be imposed by Pennsylvania. After consideration of the responses filed by Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the Respondent, the Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline pursuant to Rule 216, Pa.R.D.E., suspending Respondent.