In the Matter of Dennis Earl Braun (Review Dept. 2020)

5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 738 | Filed September 18, 2020

Overview: Attorney Dennis Earl Braun, with three prior disciplinary records, was found culpable of willfully violating Rule 9.20(c) of the California Rules of Court and Business & Professions Code §6068(k) for failing to comply with his probation conditions and a Supreme Court order. The Review Department rejected mitigation based on emotional difficulties and recommended disbarment to protect the public and maintain confidence in the legal profession.

Background

Braun was admitted to practice law in California in 1991. His current proceeding combined two matters: a Rule 9.20 enforcement action and a probation violation matter. Braun stipulated to facts showing he failed to file his compliance declaration within five months of the deadline and failed to meet or correspond with his probation deputy or timely submit required reports. He had previously been disciplined three times, including a one-year actual suspension for similar failures.

Misconduct

Braun willfully failed to comply with his Supreme Court-ordered obligations despite receiving email notices from the Office of Probation. The Review Department found that proof of willfulness does not require bad faith or actual knowledge of the rule provisions, only that he had notice of his duties. His multiple failures constituted willful violations of Rule 9.20(c) and §6068(k).

Aggravating Factors

• Prior Discipline: Three prior disciplinary matters, including a one-year actual suspension (2018), a stayed suspension (2016), and a private reproval (2003).
• Multiple Acts: Repeated failures to comply with probationary duties and Supreme Court orders.
• Pattern of Misconduct: Demonstrated inability to conform to professional standards over multiple proceedings.

Mitigating Factors

• Good Character: Braun presented testimony from 5 witnesses and 18 declarations, but most were unaware of the full extent of his misconduct.
• Cooperation: Braun entered into a stipulation admitting facts and culpability, earning limited credit.
• Emotional Difficulties: Evidence of depression was not supported by expert testimony or proven to be the cause of misconduct; thus, no mitigation was allowed.

Holding

The Review Department held that Braun’s mitigation did not outweigh significant aggravation. Under Standard 1.8(b), disbarment is appropriate for an attorney with two or more prior disciplinary records, particularly when one involves an actual suspension. Braun’s repeated failures to comply with probation orders and Rule 9.20 duties demonstrated his unwillingness or inability to conform to ethical responsibilities.

Disposition

The Review Department recommended Braun’s disbarment, enrollment as inactive under §6007(c)(4), and compliance with Rule 9.20. No monetary sanctions were imposed because the misconduct occurred before the effective date of the 2020 rule authorizing them.

Sanctions Table