¶1This attorney disciplinary matter is before the Court pursuant to the reciprocal disciplinary provisions of Rule 29, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. The facts are set forth below.
¶2Respondent is licensed to practice law in South Carolina and Florida. He resides in Florida.
¶3In April 2004, respondent pled guilty to misprision of felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. He received a two (2) year probationary sentence and fine.
¶4Respondent reported the matter to the Commission on Lawyer Conduct. The Court placed respondent on interim *69suspension. In the Matter of Harper, 359 S.C. 554, 598 S.E.2d 717 (2004).
¶5On November 10, 2005, the Supreme Court of Florida issued an order suspending respondent from the practice of law in that state for two years, effective nunc pro tunc, August 6, 2004.
¶6Pursuant to Rule 29(b), RLDE, the Clerk provided the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) and respondent with thirty (30) days in which to inform the Court of any reason why the imposition of identical discipline was not warranted. Both ODC and respondent filed responses stating the Court should impose the same discipline as imposed by the Supreme Court of Florida.
¶7After thorough review of the record, we hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law in this state for two (2) years, retroactive to the date of his interim suspension. Within fifteen days of the date of this opinion, respondent shall file an affidavit with the Clerk of Court showing that he has complied with Rule 30, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR.
¶8DEFINITE SUSPENSION.