Respondent Dennis Earl Braun, admitted to the California Bar in 1991, faced consolidated disciplinary charges for willfully violating Rule 9.20(c) of the California Rules of Court and Business and Professions Code §6068(k). The misconduct stemmed from Braun’s failure to timely file a Supreme Court–ordered compliance declaration and to meet multiple probationary conditions imposed in prior disciplinary matters.

Before trial, Braun stipulated to all relevant facts, admitting that he filed his Rule 9.20(c) declaration more than five months late, failed to schedule a required probation meeting until nearly two months overdue, and submitted quarterly probation reports months behind schedule. He also failed to complete and prove passage of the State Bar’s Ethics School within the mandated time. The hearing judge found Braun culpable but recommended an 18-month actual suspension, giving considerable mitigation weight to his claimed recovery from depression.

On review, the State Bar Court Review Department disagreed. It held that Braun’s mitigation claim was unsupported because no expert testified to a causal link between his depressive symptoms and his misconduct. Under Standard 1.6(d), emotional difficulties may mitigate discipline only when (1) proven by expert evidence; (2) shown to have directly caused the misconduct; and (3) shown to no longer pose a risk. Braun met none of these conditions. The court also found that his repeated non-participation in prior disciplinary proceedings undermined any claim of rehabilitation.

In aggravation, the Review Department emphasized Braun’s three prior disciplinary records, including a one-year actual suspension, his pattern of violating probation conditions, and his multiple acts of wrongdoing. His repeated disregard for orders demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to conform to professional standards. Mitigation for cooperation was limited because Braun’s stipulation covered easily provable facts, and his late compliance filings were not spontaneous expressions of remorse but reactive to enforcement efforts.

Applying Standard 1.8(b) of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, the court concluded that disbarment is generally appropriate when an attorney with two or more prior disciplines—including one actual suspension—commits further violations that show a pattern of misconduct. Finding no compelling reason to depart from that presumption, the Review Department recommended disbarment and inactive enrollment under §6007(c)(4). Monetary sanctions were denied because the authorizing rule did not apply retroactively to conduct predating its effective date.

The Braun decision reinforces the principle that Rule 9.20 violations are inherently serious because they signify a willful failure to obey Supreme Court orders. Where repeated probation breaches and unsupported emotional defenses accompany multiple prior disciplines, disbarment is the expected outcome to safeguard the public and maintain confidence in the legal profession.