Overview

Bradford Eric Henschel petitioned for relief from an 18-month actual suspension under Standard 1.4(c)(ii), which required him to prove rehabilitation, present fitness to practice, and present learning and ability in the general law.

Although the hearing judge granted relief, the Review Department reversed, finding insufficient evidence of rehabilitation and concluding that the hearing judge abused his discretion.

Prior Discipline (Henschel I & II)

Henschel I (1997)

• Failure to perform competently
• Filing frivolous objections and appeals
• Failure to obey court orders
• Failure to cooperate with the State Bar
• Failure to refund unearned fees

Discipline included probation and actual suspension. Aggravation included indifference toward rectification and significant client harm.

Henschel II (2002)

• Moral turpitude (§6106)
• Unauthorized practice while suspended
• Failure to comply with court orders
• Improper withdrawal
• Multiple acts of misconduct

Discipline: Five years’ probation and 18 months’ actual suspension, continuing until proof of rehabilitation under Standard 1.4(c)(ii).

Post-Discipline Conduct

After stipulating to discipline, Henschel immediately sought to set aside his stipulation, claiming coercion and prosecutorial misconduct. He launched a prolonged campaign accusing State Bar prosecutors of criminal acts, perjury, conspiracy, and moral turpitude.

He also:

• Repeatedly challenged the State Bar Court’s jurisdiction
• Argued he was “not a member” of the State Bar
• Claimed Standard 1.4(c)(ii) was unconstitutional
• Demanded removal of his disciplinary record from the Bar’s website
• Filed multiple meritless motions to transfer proceedings to the Supreme Court

The Review Department described these actions as an “objectively unsupportable crusade” and a “relentless and meritless offensive” against the disciplinary system.

Evidence Presented for Rehabilitation

• Full compliance with probation terms
• Completion of Ethics School
• Over 100 hours of CLE
• Volunteer work and community service
• 28 character declarations
• Paralegal employment

However, most declarants misunderstood the cause and scope of his misconduct, often attributing it solely to a medical condition. Many were unaware of the full disciplinary findings.

Key Legal Findings

1. No Exemplary Conduct

The court held that continued meritless jurisdictional challenges and accusations against the State Bar demonstrated that petitioner’s prior misconduct was not aberrational.

2. Lack of Remorse

Henschel continued to deny responsibility, asserting illness and prosecutorial coercion. The court emphasized that rehabilitation requires acceptance of responsibility, not artificial contrition, but genuine accountability.

3. Fitness to Practice

His campaign against State Bar employees reflected a lack of respect for the judicial process and failed to demonstrate good moral character.

4. Learning and Ability

Despite extensive CLE, his repeated meritless legal arguments showed an inability to competently evaluate law and draw appropriate conclusions.

Disposition

Why This Case Matters

Henschel underscores that strict compliance with probation alone is insufficient. An attorney must demonstrate:

• True rehabilitation
• Acceptance of responsibility
• Respect for the disciplinary system
• Demonstrated moral fitness

Persistent attacks on the legitimacy of the disciplinary process can themselves defeat a showing of rehabilitation.