Overview

Attorney: Bradley Lynn Jensen | Case No. 11-C-11890

The California State Bar Court Review Department upheld a 120-day actual suspension for attorney Bradley Lynn Jensen following his misdemeanor conviction for child endangerment under Penal Code § 273a(b). Although the conviction did not involve moral turpitude, the facts were found to reflect “other misconduct warranting discipline.” The court declined to impose disbarment despite two prior disciplinary records, finding such punishment disproportionate to the misconduct.

Facts

In March 2011, Jensen left his nine-month-old daughter asleep in a crib placed partially inside a hotel bathtub while he took his three-year-old son for a walk lasting about 40 minutes. Hotel staff discovered the crying infant, contacted police, and Jensen was arrested upon return. He later pled no contest to misdemeanor child endangerment and was sentenced to probation, a fine, and completion of 52 weeks of parenting classes.

Jensen expressed deep remorse, voluntarily completed additional parenting courses, and fully complied with probation terms. He explained that the incident occurred on the anniversary of his sister’s death and reflected an isolated lapse in judgment unrelated to his law practice.

Procedural History and Issues

• The hearing judge found the conduct lacked moral turpitude but warranted discipline.
• The State Bar sought disbarment under Standard 1.7(b) (third discipline) and argued—without success—that Jensen lied to police and thus acted dishonestly.
• The Review Department rejected the dishonesty claim, citing inconsistent and hearsay-laden police reports that did not meet the clear-and-convincing standard.

Findings

• No Moral Turpitude: The record showed no deception or fraudulent intent. The conviction established only that Jensen left his child unattended, not that he lied to authorities.
• Other Misconduct Warranting Discipline: The conduct, though personal and unrelated to law practice, displayed poor judgment and reflected adversely on the profession.

Aggravation

• Prior Discipline: Two prior cases (2007 and 2011) received limited weight because the underlying misconduct pre-dated the first discipline and was only moderately serious.
• No Aggravation for Dishonesty or Harm: The State Bar’s evidence of lying and public harm was unproven; the potential risk to the child was already inherent in the conviction itself.

Mitigation

• Remorse and Responsibility: Jensen acknowledged his mistake as a “significant lapse in judgment,” accepted discipline, and sought corrective education.
• Community Service: Extensive volunteer work at his church, mentoring at-risk youth, and hospital support projects for families with infants in intensive care warranted considerable weight.
• Cooperation: Jensen stipulated to documentary evidence establishing culpability and assisted the prosecution; full cooperation and candor credited.
• No Mitigation for Character Evidence: Only two witnesses testified, insufficient under Standard 1.2(e)(vi).

Disciplinary Analysis

The court emphasized that its purpose is to protect the public, not punish. While the incident was serious and demonstrated poor parental judgment, it was isolated, unrelated to legal practice, and showed no ongoing threat to clients or the justice system. The Review Department rejected automatic disbarment under Standard 1.7(b), noting the Supreme Court has not applied it mechanically and that Jensen’s priors were remote and overlapping. The court instead followed Standard 3.4 (conviction cases not involving moral turpitude), recommending a 120-day actual suspension within a one-year stayed suspension and two years’ probation.

Sanctions Table

Key Takeaways

• Not every criminal conviction involving poor judgment warrants severe professional discipline; the context and impact on professional fitness are critical.
• The State Bar must prove dishonesty or moral turpitude by clear and convincing evidence; hearsay police reports are insufficient.
• Prior discipline receives limited aggravating weight when misconduct is overlapping or remote.
• Remorse, cooperation, and sustained community engagement remain decisive mitigating factors.