People v. Braham, 409 P.3d 655

Background

Thomas John Braham (att. reg. No. 41010) was charged by the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel with multiple disciplinary violations based on conduct from 2014–2016; he defaulted to many allegations and the court deemed the facts admitted.
Braham failed to appear and obey court orders in a DUI matter (Plaster), violating tribunal rules.
In multiple bankruptcy matters (Finch, Garcia, Spell) Braham filed erroneous petitions and plans, placed a client’s electronic signature on filings without authorization, withdrew fees, abandoned clients, converted advance fees, and failed to return files or funds.
He ignored disciplinary investigators’ communications and failed to participate fully in the disciplinary process, violating the duty to respond.
Braham testified to a history of alcoholism and recent rehabilitation but produced little corroborating medical evidence; the court gave limited mitigating weight to his addiction claim.
The court found knowing conversion and abandonment, applied ABA Standards, significant aggravating factors, and concluded disbarment is the appropriate sanction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether respondent committed ethical violations warranting discipline	People: Braham knowingly disobeyed court orders, filed false bankruptcy documents (including unauthorized electronic signatures), abandoned clients, converted client funds, and failed to respond to disciplinary inquiries	Braham: misconduct resulted from alcoholism and personal problems; sought mitigation and a lesser sanction (suspension)	Court: facts admitted by default and evidence support violations of multiple Colo. RPCs; misconduct established
Whether alcoholism/ADA excuses or substantially mitigates misconduct	People: addiction does not excuse dishonest conduct or conversion; mitigation limited absent medical proof and causal link	Braham: asserted alcohol use disorder and rehabilitation; argued ADA/disability protections and mitigation justify reduced sanction	Court: alcoholism given little weight; Braham failed to meet four‑part medical/causation/rehabilitation proof; ADA does not bar discipline
Appropriate presumptive sanction for conversion and abandonment	People: ABA Standards 4.11 and 4.41 support disbarment for knowing conversion and abandonment causing client injury	Braham: sought a three‑year suspension instead of disbarment	Held: Disbarment is the presumptive and appropriate sanction given conversion, abandonment, multiple offenses, and aggravating factors
Weight of aggravating/mitigating factors (e.g., remorse, prior suspension, restitution)	People: aggravators (dishonest motive, pattern, multiple offenses, obstruction, failure to refund) outweigh mitigators; restitution absent	Braham: remorse, pro bono history, and sobriety warrant mitigation	Court: gave significant weight to multiple aggravators and only limited weight to mitigation (remorse, character, limited weight to addiction); disbarment affirmed

Key Cases Cited

People v. Richards, 748 P.2d 341 (Colo. 1987) (procedures for default in disciplinary proceedings)
People v. Townshend, 933 P.2d 1327 (Colo. 1997) (disbarment for accepting retainers, abandoning clients, and failing to participate in disciplinary process)
People v. Lavenhar, 934 P.2d 1355 (Colo. 1997) (knowing conversion of funds warrants disbarment absent extraordinary mitigation)
People v. Varallo, 913 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1996) (conversion calls for disbarment absent significant mitigation)
People v. Lefly, 902 P.2d 361 (Colo. 1995) (disbarment is virtually automatic for knowing conversion without significant mitigation)
People v. Reynolds, 933 P.2d 1295 (Colo. 1997) (ADA does not bar discipline where misconduct is not the direct result of a disability)
In re Attorney F., 285 P.3d 322 (Colo. 2012) (direction to weigh mitigating and aggravating factors and exercise disciplinary discretion)
In re Rosen, 198 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2008) (guidance on proportionality and mitigation analysis)