Disciplinary Case Summaries, 0118 COBJ, Vol. 47, No. 1 Pg. 80
| Position | Vol. 47, 1 [Page 80] |
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE
No. 17PDJ035. People v. Braham. 10/12/2017.
Following a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Thomas John Braham (attorney registration number 41010) from the practice of law, effective November 16, 2017.
Braham committed misconduct in four separate matters. In the first case, a DUI case, Braham failed to appear for a plea and setting hearing, a rescheduled hearing, and a show cause hearing. Braham also did not show up for two contempt hearings.
In a second matter, Braham mishandled his client’s bankruptcy case. He electronically fled several documents with the client’s signature, yet she neither reviewed nor authorized the documents to be fled. The documents contained several errors. The bankruptcy case was then dismissed because the client failed to make monthly payments. Braham filed a second bankruptcy petition for his client, which again contained numerous mistakes. Later, he failed to modify the plan after his client’s husband lost his job, even though the client was unable to make payments. The client consistently had trouble communicating with Braham. Braham eventually fled a motion to modify his client’s bankruptcy plan but failed to appear at the hearing on that motion. Though his client’s bankruptcy case was once again dismissed, Braham withdrew his attorney fees from his client’s bankruptcy plan.
In a third case, Braham was hired to file a bankruptcy petition. He collected an advanced fee from his client but never fled a petition. The client was unable to contact Braham, who never returned the client’s file or advance fees.
In a fourth matter, Braham was hired to file a bankruptcy petition. He collected an advanced fee yet failed to file a petition or respond to his client’s communications. Braham never issued a refund to this client, nor did he return the file. During the investigation of all four matters, the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel tried to communicate with Braham and to obtain additional information from him. He never responded.
In these matters, Braham violated Colo. RPC 1.1 (a lawyer shall competently represent a client); Colo. RPC 1.3 (a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client); Colo. RPC 1.4(a)(4) (a lawyer shall promptly comply...
To continue reading
Request your trial