concurring in the result:
If I were the trier of fact and writing on a clean slate, I would find the recommended sanctions in this case to be too lenient. Lawyers are members of an honored profession, and much is and ought to be expected of them. See generally In re Shillaire, 549 A.2d 336 (D.C.1988). Dory completely neglected the cases of two clients and ignored their inquiries, with much of the neglect in the second case occurring while he was under investigation for the first. In my view, suspension for a total of only sixty days under these circumstances demonstrates more compassion for the errant lawyer than justice for his wronged client and for the public. Indeed, I find the proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendations filed by Bar Counsel before the Board more persuasive than the assessment of the evidence by the Hearing Committee and by the Board.
Specifically, I think the following passage from Bar Counsel’s submission gets to the heart of the issue of intent:
DR 7-101(A)(l) mandates that an attorney not intentionally fail to seek the lawful objectives of his client through reasonable available means. The court has held that an attorney violates this section if he was “demonstrably aware of (his) neglect or if (his) neglect was so pervasive that (he) must have been aware of it.” In re Reback & Parsons, 487 A.2d 235, 240 (D.C.1985).
Respondent had to be “demonstrably aware” of his neglect as to the probate. Here, complainant wrote of her efforts to contact Respondent:
Since June 1985,1 have called Mr. Dory’s office on many occasions. I was always informed that he was out and would return my calls. My calls were never returned ... I have called many times, but he has refused to return my calls or contact me in any manner.
A man is held to intend the foreseeable consequences of his conduct. Radio Officers Union v. N.L.R.B., 347 U.S. 17, 45, 74 S.Ct. 323, 338, 98 L.Ed. 455 (1954). When an attorney does virtually nothing on a case for nearly three years after accepting money from a client and then fails to re*523turn either the money or her numerous phone calls, there surely comes a time when the neglect must be deemed intentional. If, as Dory complains, he had a worsening drinking problem1 and a horrendous personnel situation and could not do what he was honor bound to do, he should have told the client so and returned her money. I hope that the Board does not treat the “demonstrably aware” standard of Reback & Parsons as requiring malice or a specific intent to harm the client. Although intentional failure to seek a client’s lawful objectives (DR 7-101(A)(l)), obviously requires more of a showing than does neglect (DR 6-101(A)(3)), I see nothing in the language of the Rule or in our precedents that would require proof of malice or its equivalent.
With respect to restitution for Mrs. Johnson, Bar Counsel recommended that
as to Complainant, Respondent should be ordered to refund the illegal and unearned fee. He accepted $420.00 but refunded $41.00. Therefore, he should refund $379.00 unless the Probate Division permits him to retain some part of it. Respondent knew or should have known on January 27, 1984, that he could not effectively represent Complainant. Despite his being overworked and disillusioned with his practice, Respondent took on complainant’s case and performed no meaningful or substantial work.
Bar Counsel’s analysis appears to me to be right on target. Neither the Hearing Committee nor the Board has given any indication why restitution has not been recommended. See In re Taylor, 511 A.2d 386 (D.C.1986) (per curiam); In re Roundtree, 467 A.2d 143, 148 (D.C.1983), both holding that restitution may be ordered in neglect cases.
The Board correctly points out that “since the misconduct in both cases occurred during the same period, this is not a situation where Respondent committed a second disciplinary violation after having been previously sanctioned for a prior violation.” The complainant in Dory I, however, filed a complaint about Respondent’s misconduct on March 27, 1985. Most of the misconduct in the present case, including Dory’s failure to return his client’s telephone calls, occurred after Dory knew that he was under investigation for a prior violation which he subsequently acknowledged having committed. This, in my view, tends to take some of the bloom off the rose of his prior “unblemished” record.
I am also troubled by the Hearing Committee’s finding, adopted by the Board, that the neglect and resulting delay did not cause any serious harm to the client. This may be true with respect to financial harm, although it can hardly be to a surviving daughter’s advantage to have a deceased parent’s estate tied up for three unnecessary years on account of inexcusable delay by one’s advocate. But feelings are facts too. Although the record is not explicit on the point, one does not need an overdeveloped imagination to appreciate how betrayed a client — in this case a bereaved client — feels when a lawyer takes her money, does almost nothing on her case, and refuses to respond to any of her inquiries. Surely her inconvenience and consternation must be considered in any reasonable assessment of the harm which she suffered.
Viewed in its entirety, Dory’s conduct over a long period of time seems to me so alien to what being a lawyer is about that more meaningful sanctions are called for. This court’s scope of review is, however, restricted by Disciplinary Rule XI § 7(3), quoted in the majority opinion. Moreover, Bar Counsel, who initially recommended suspension of Dory for six months as well as full restitution, has not asked this court to disapprove the Board’s recommendation. In an extreme case, these considerations are not conclusive. See In re Shillaire, *524supra. I do not, however, find this to be such an extreme case, and there is no decisive error of law. Accordingly, and with more than a little reluctance, I concur in the judgment of the court.
. Although this court has held that proof of alcoholism and subsequent rehabilitation may be considered in mitigation, the fact that "alcoholism is a cause of attorney misconduct has no bearing on the determination of what sanction should be imposed in the first instance." In re Reid, 540 A.2d 754, 759 (D.C.1988) (per curiam); In re Kersey, 520 A.2d 321 (D.C.1987). I discern nothing in this record which would entitle Dory to benefit from the general Reid-Kersey approach.