On consideration of the certified order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland indefinitely suspending respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction with the right to seek reinstatement after twelve months; this court's June 5, 2018, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why reciprocal discipline in the form of a twelve-month suspension with a fitness condition should not be imposed; and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline; it appearing that respondent has failed to file either a response to this court's order to show cause or the affidavit as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g); and it further appearing that respondent was previously suspended for a period of six months with a fitness condition and that he failed to file the required D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) in that case, it is
ORDERED that Ross D. Hecht, is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of twelve months and reinstatement contingent on satisfying the fitness requirement. See In re Sibley , 990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 2010) ; In 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). This period of suspension shall run consecutively to the six-month suspension imposed in In re Hecht , 75 A.3d 912 (D.C. 2013). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent's consecutive *723period of suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that fully complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g).