In re Bradshaw, 17 Cal.5th 1095

Drexel Bradshaw, an attorney, was appointed as successor trustee for the Gosey Revocable Living Trust, intended to provide for the care of elderly settlor Ora Gosey and manage her home, the main trust asset.
Bradshaw arranged for significant repairs to Gosey’s home, hiring Bay Construction, a company he covertly created, controlled, and funded, without properly disclosing his connection to the court or obtaining competitive bids.
Probate and disciplinary proceedings revealed Bradshaw funneled trust funds to Bay Construction (often using unlicensed contractors), misrepresented his relationship with the company, and failed to prioritize the interests of the trust beneficiary over his own.
Bradshaw made several willful misrepresentations to courts regarding his role and interests in Bay Construction and the reasons for reverse mortgages draining the trust’s assets.
The State Bar’s Hearing Department found Bradshaw culpable and recommended disbarment; the Review Department (over one dissent) recommended a lesser suspension. The Supreme Court undertook independent review after the OCTC petitioned for further review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scheme to defraud trust (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6106)	Bradshaw used his positions to secretly benefit himself at Trust’s expense.	Bradshaw argued his actions did not constitute fraud and he had no improper control or benefit.	Bradshaw culpable—clear and convincing evidence of a scheme to defraud by self-dealing and nondisclosure.
Breach of fiduciary duty (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(a))	Bradshaw prioritized his self-interest, failed to seek bids or disclose, exposing trust to unqualified contractors.	Bradshaw claimed he acted in trust's best interest, work was fairly valued/approved.	Breach found: Self-dealing, lack of prudence, and concealment constituted breach of fiduciary duty.
Willful misrepresentation (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6106)	Bradshaw deceived the probate court about his affiliation with Bay Construction and use of trust funds.	Bradshaw asserted misstatements were at most grossly negligent, not intentional.	Held: Misrepresentations were intentional and willful, not merely negligent.
Appropriate discipline	Disbarment needed to protect public/trust; Bradshaw’s actions deliberate & aggravated by prior discipline.	Suspension, not disbarment; misconduct not egregious or harmful enough for disbarment.	Disbarment ordered—pattern of dishonesty, lack of remorse, vulnerability of client.

Chasteen v. State Bar, 40 Cal.3d 586 (Cal. 1985) (describes main purposes of attorney discipline as public protection and maintaining integrity of profession)
Greenbaum v. State Bar, 43 Cal.3d 543 (Cal. 1987) (hearing judge's findings entitled to great weight, especially on credibility)
Connor v. State Bar, 50 Cal.3d 1047 (Cal. 1990) (no harm requirement for attorney breach of fiduciary duty)
Lebbos v. State Bar, 53 Cal.3d 37 (Cal. 1991) (disbarment proper where attorney lacks remorse after repeated acts of dishonesty)
Allen v. State Bar, 20 Cal.3d 172 (Cal. 1977) (no actual harm required for fraudulent attorney conduct)