On consideration of the certified order of the Indiana Supreme Court suspending respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction for a period of 90 days with reinstatement contingent on showing fitness, this court's April 27, 2018, order suspending respondent and directing him to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline; and it appearing that respondent failed to file a response to this court's order to show cause or his D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit, it is
ORDERED that Carl L. Epstein is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of 90 days with a fitness requirement. See In re Sibley , 990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 2010), and *802In re Fuller , 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent's period of suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files a D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit.