STATE OF MINNESOTA

                                  IN SUPREME COURT

                                         A22-1010


Original Jurisdiction                                                          Per Curiam
                                                                 Took no part, Hennesy, J.


In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against                       Filed: June 12, 2024
James V. Bradley, a Minnesota Attorney,                         Office of Appellate Courts

.

                              ________________________


Susan M. Humiston, Director, Timothy M. Burke, Senior Assistant Director, Office of
Lawyers Professional Responsibility, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for petitioner.

James V. Bradley, Bloomington, Minnesota, pro se.

                              ________________________

SYLLABUS

       Absent any mitigating factors, disbarment is the appropriate discipline for an

attorney who misappropriates client funds, commits fraud on the court, neglects—and

ultimately abandons—his role as a court-appointed parenting consultant, fails to maintain

trust account books and records, and fails to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation.

       Disbarred.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

          The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (Director) filed

a petition for disciplinary action against respondent James V. Bradley. The petition alleged

that Bradley committed numerous acts of professional misconduct, including

misappropriating client funds, committing fraud on the court, neglecting—and ultimately

abandoning—his role as a court-appointed parenting consultant, failing to maintain trust

account books and records, and failing to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation.

Bradley received a copy of the petition via certified mail but did not respond, so we deemed

the allegations admitted and allowed the parties to file memoranda on the appropriate

discipline. Bradley did not file a memorandum or appear at oral argument. The Director

asserts that the appropriate discipline is disbarment. We agree. Based on Bradley’s

misconduct and the absence of any mitigating factors, we disbar Bradley from the practice

of law.

                                           FACTS

          Bradley was admitted to practice law in Minnesota in 2011. Until November 2020,

Bradley practiced family law at a law firm. On July 20, 2022, the Director filed a petition

for disciplinary action against Bradley, alleging numerous violations of the Minnesota

Rules of Professional Conduct. After the Director was unable to personally serve Bradley,

we granted the Director’s application for suspension and gave Bradley a year to file a

motion to vacate the suspension and seek leave to answer the petition. See Rule 12(c)(1),

Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR). Because Bradley failed to move


                                              2
this court to vacate the order of suspension within a year, we deemed the allegations in the

petition admitted. See Rule 13(b), RLPR. The admitted allegations of misconduct are

summarized as follows.

       Bradley misappropriated funds from one client, violating Minn. R. Prof. Conduct

8.4(c). 1 The client was entitled to an $8,442.23 judgment following a marital dissolution

proceeding, which Bradley received from counsel for the client’s former spouse and

deposited into his firm’s trust account. Bradley did not disburse any of these funds to the

client and instead used the funds for purposes unrelated to the client’s representation,

including for his own personal benefit. Bradley also failed to properly maintain trust

account books and records for his law firm, violating Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(h). 2

Due to Bradley’s failure to maintain all required books and records, the Director was unable

to fully audit the trust account and could not determine precisely when Bradley transferred

this client’s money out of the trust account and the exact amount of client funds that were

misappropriated.

       In addition, Bradley committed fraud on the court during his own marital dissolution

proceeding by making false statements related to a judgment and decree and defying




1
      See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(c) (“It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . .
engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”).
2
       See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(h) (“Every lawyer engaged in private practice of
law shall maintain or cause to be maintained on a current basis, books and records sufficient
to demonstrate income derived from, and expenses related to, the lawyer’s private practice
of law . . . .”); see also Minn. R. Prof. Conduct app. 1 (describing the “books and records”
required by Rule 1.15(h)).

                                             3
district court orders, violating Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.3(a)(1), 3 3.4(c), 4 and 8.4(c) and

(d). 5 Bradley also failed to adequately communicate with the parties in a family law matter

after becoming a court-appointed parenting consultant, and he abandoned that appointment

without notice, violating Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d). And Bradley failed to cooperate

with the Director’s disciplinary investigation, violating Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.1(b) 6 and

Rule 25, RLPR. 7

       After we deemed the allegations in the petition admitted, we allowed the parties to

submit memoranda detailing the appropriate discipline for Bradley’s misconduct. Bradley

did not submit a memorandum and failed to appear at oral argument.

                                           ANALYSIS

       Because the allegations in the petition are deemed admitted, the only issue

remaining before us is the appropriate discipline for Bradley. See In re Gorshteyn, 931



3
        See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.3(a)(1) (“A lawyer shall not knowingly . . . make a
false statement of fact or law to a tribunal, or fail to correct a false statement of material
fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer . . . .”).
4
       See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.4(c) (“A lawyer shall not . . . knowingly disobey an
obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that
no valid obligation exists . . . .”).
5
      See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d) (“It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . .
engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice . . . .”).
6
         See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.1(b) (“[A] lawyer . . . in connection with a disciplinary
matter, shall not . . . knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from [a]
. . . disciplinary authority . . . .”).
7
       See Rule 25, RLPR (“It shall be the duty of any lawyer who is the subject of an
investigation or proceeding . . . to cooperate with . . . the Director, or the Director’s staff . . .
by complying with reasonable requests . . . .”).

                                                 

 (Minn. 2019) (considering only the appropriate discipline to impose

when the attorney did not respond to the Director’s petitions). Citing to Bradley’s admitted

disciplinary violations, including (1) misappropriation of client funds without making

restitution or providing mitigating circumstances, (2) commission of fraud on the court and

knowingly failing to obey a court order, (3) neglect of a client matter, (4) failure to maintain

required trust account books and records, and (5) failure to cooperate with the Director’s

investigation, the Director asks us to disbar Bradley “to protect the public, deter future

misconduct, and remain consistent with the Court’s prior cases.”

       “We have the ultimate responsibility for determining what discipline should be

imposed for attorney misconduct.” 

 at 770 (citing In re Matson, 

(Minn. 2017)). The purpose of attorney discipline “is not to punish the attorney but rather

to protect the public, to protect the judicial system, and to deter future misconduct by the

disciplined attorney as well as by other attorneys.” In re Rebeau, 

(Minn. 2010).

       To determine the appropriate discipline, we consider four factors: (1) the nature of

the misconduct; (2) the cumulative weight of the violations; (3) the harm to the public; and

(4) the harm to the legal profession. In re Kleyman, 

, 572 (Minn. 2021).

We also consider whether any aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present. 

And “although we impose discipline on a case-by-case basis, we look to similar cases for

guidance” and to ensure consistency. In re Capistrant, 

, 620 (Minn. 2018).

We address each of these considerations in turn.




                                               5
          We first consider the nature of Bradley’s misconduct, the most serious of which is

the misappropriation of client funds. Misappropriation alone “usually warrants disbarment

absent clear and convincing evidence of substantial mitigating factors.” In re Rhodes, 

 (Minn. 2007) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Bradley misappropriated one client’s funds, though the extent of the misappropriation

beyond that instance is unknown.

          Bradley also engaged in other serious misconduct. Bradley failed to maintain trust

account books and records, such that the Director could not ascertain to which clients the

remaining funds in the firm’s trust account belonged or at what time the funds

misappropriated from the client in the marital dissolution proceeding were withdrawn from

the account. See In re Schulte, 

, 677–78 (Minn. 2015) (“We have

suspended attorneys for trust account violations even when there was no evidence they

intended to deceive their clients or that their trust account violations harmed any clients.”).

In addition, Bradley engaged in dishonest conduct by defying court orders and making

false statements to the district court. See In re Nwaneri, 

 (Minn.

2017) (explaining that “[h]onesty and integrity are chief among the virtues the public has

a right to expect of lawyers” and that making false statements to a court is “significant

misconduct” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)). And Bradley also

failed to cooperate with the Director’s investigation. See Schulte, 

(stating that the lawyer’s failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation was

“particularly serious as it prevented the Director from determining if client funds were at

risk”).


                                              6
      Next, we consider the cumulative weight of Bradley’s disciplinary violations. In

doing so, we “distinguish between a brief lapse in judgment or a single, isolated incident

and multiple instances of misconduct occurring over a substantial amount of time.” In re

Igbanugo, 

, 329–30 (Minn. 2023) (citation omitted) (internal quotation

marks omitted). Bradley violated numerous rules of professional conduct over the course

of at least 3 years. As a result, Bradley’s misconduct was neither “a brief lapse in

judgment” nor a “single, isolated incident.” See In re Ulanowski, 

(Minn. 2013) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

      We also consider the harm that Bradley’s misconduct caused to the public,

measured, in part, based on “the number of clients harmed [and] the extent of the clients’

injuries.” In re Coleman, 

 (Minn. 2011) (alteration in original)

(citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).    Bradley’s misconduct directly

harmed at least one client, who has not received the $8,442.23 to which he is entitled.

Bradley’s misconduct also harmed an adverse party—his former spouse—and non-client

members of the public—the two parties to the family law matter for which Bradley was a

court-appointed parenting consultant.

      Lastly, we consider the harm to the legal profession caused by Bradley’s

misconduct. We have recognized that “ ‘[m]isappropriation of client funds, by its very

nature, harms . . . the public at large, the legal profession, and the administration of

justice.’ ” Ulanowski, 

 (alterations in original) (quoting In re Ruttger,

 (Minn. 1997)). Making false statements to a district court also harms

the legal profession. In re Sea, 

 (Minn. 2019). And a failure to


                                            7
cooperate with a disciplinary investigation harms the legal profession. In re Letourneau,

 (Minn. 2011) (finding that non-cooperation “undermine[s] . . . the

integrity of the lawyer disciplinary system” (alterations in original) (citation omitted)

(internal quotation marks omitted)).

       In addition to the four factors discussed above, we also consider whether any

aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present in determining the appropriate

discipline. Kleyman, 960 N.W.2d at 572. Because the attorney must allege and prove

mitigating factors, Bradley’s “failure to file an answer to the petition means that there are

no mitigating factors for us to consider.” Ulanowski, 834 N.W.2d at 703–04. The Director

advances two aggravating factors: lack of remorse and failure to participate in the public

disciplinary proceedings. Under the present circumstances, we need not consider these

aggravating factors. See In re Lee, 3 N.W.3d 278, 284 (Minn. 2024). “In the absence of

any mitigating factors, misappropriation of client funds warrants disbarment.”            Id.

Accordingly, we conclude that the appropriate discipline for Bradley is disbarment.

                                       CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, respondent James V. Bradley is disbarred from the

practice of law in the State of Minnesota, effective on the date of this opinion. Respondent

must comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice to clients, opposing counsel, and

tribunals), and must pay $900 in costs under Rule 24(a), RLPR.

       Disbarred.

       HENNESY, J., not having been a member of this court at the time of submission,

took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


                                              8