In re the Disbarment of Braggans
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 2025, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Disciplinary Act. Against Weyhrich (Minn. 1983)
- In re the Discipline of Serstock (Minn. 1982)
- In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Stephen J. Baird, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0398840. ... (Minn. 2025)
- In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Kaszynski (Minn. 2001)
- In re Disciplinary Action Against Walker (Minn. 1990)
- In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Isaacs (Minn. 1990)
- In RE DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST McCOY (Minn. 1989)
- In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Flanery (Minn. 1988)
- Matter of Discipline of Carey (Minn. 1986)
- In re Disciplinary Action Against Lee (Minn. 1983)
- Matter of Discipline of Peck (Minn. 1981)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
This is a disciplinary proceeding of long duration which has been unduly protracted in a futile effort to permit the respondent Braggans to address the psychological problems with which he is afflicted, and to afford him an opportunity to continue his practice of law. No moral turpitude was alleged in any of the original charges against him. It is now evident that for the protection of the public he must be and hereby is disbarred.
*35 No useful purpose would be served in detailing the numerous instances of inexcusable neglect which have characterized his handling of clients’ matters. In July 1972 we found respondent guilty of dilatory tactics in dealing with professional retainers entrusted to him by clients, and we imposed on him a severe public censure. Thereafter in March, 1975 we concurred in the recommendation of the Honorable Luther Sletten, acting as referee, and ordered that respondent close his office and retire from general practice, limiting his clients only to specified financial institutions who had expressed confidence in his ability to handle their affairs.
Further complaints subsequently emerged and resulted in a recommendation for disbarment by the Honorable Milton D. Mason, also a referee appointed by this court. After a hearing and while a decision on that recommendation was pending, the Administrative Director on Professional Conduct filed a supplemental petition alleging that respondent had continued to engage in the general practice of law in violation of. our prior order. Among other complaints of malpractice against respondent, one has resulted in a default judgment against him for $767,409.65 in December 1978 arising out of his failure to commence or prosecute a personal injury claim he assumed for a client in the year 1959.
This court sitting en banc has accorded respondent a full hearing on all of these charges and although he personally appeared, he offered no defense and presented no facts or arguments by way of mitigation which would justify a further delay in imposing the sanction of disbarment.
Accordingly, the respondent Harold McKenzie Braggans is herewith disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Minnesota.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.