Opinion
21-049
01-26-2023
IN THE MATTER OF MATTHEW D. BRAUKMANN, An Attorney at Law, Respondent.
COMPLAINT RULES 1.1,1.3,1.4, AND 3.2, MRPC
By leave of the Commission on Practice granted on January 12, 2023, the Office of Disciplinaiy Counsel for the State of Montana (ODC), hereby charges Matthew D. Braukmann with professional misconduct as follows:
General Allegations
1. Matthew D. Braukmann, hereinafter referred to as Respondent, was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Montana in 2005, at which time he took the oath required for admission, wherein he agreed to abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Disciplinary Rules adopted by the Supreme Court, and the highest standards of honesty, justice and morality, including but not limited to, those outlined in parts 3 and 4 of Chapter 61, Title 37, Montana Code Annotated.
2. The Montana Supreme Court has approved and adopted the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC), governing the ethical conduct of attorneys licensed to practice in the State of Montana, which Rules were in effect at all times mentioned in this Complaint.
Count One
3. L.S. was in an auto accident in Ravalli County Montana in August 2018. In December 2018, she hired Respondent to represent her on a contingency fee basis.
4. In February 2019, Respondent began his own firm, Braukmann Law, and L.S. elected to transition with him. An amendment to the original fee agreement was signed in February 2019. The amendment authorized the transition of client property to Braukmann Law and clarified the same terms of representation applied.
5. At this time, Respondent instructed L.S. not to communicate with the insurance company and advised he would contact them directly. During the representation, L.S. was advised her bills had been sent to collections and the collections company was going to sue her. Upon learning this information, L.S. attempted numerous times to contact Respondent. None of L.S.'s attempted contacts were returned by Respondent.
6. Thereafter, L.S. terminated the representation and requested a complete copy of her client file. Respondent produced a digital copy to L.S. which contained approximately 18 pages; including a client "intake sheet" which reflected L.S.'s contact information; a copy of the fee agreement; the addendum (and two (2) blank copies of both); five (5) copies of blank medical release forms; two cover letters requesting L.S.'s signature on the releases; L.S.'s email to Respondent terminating the representation; and a letter to L.S. notifying her of her statute of limitations (filed around the same time as Respondent's response to ODC). There were no communications from Respondent to the insurance carrier, no demand for medical bills to be paid or medical records requested. The information contained therein, was not consistent with a representation lasting approximately one-year.
7. ODC interviewed L.S.'s subsequent counsel and obtained his client file. Subsequent counsel was able to get L.S.'s medical bills paid, and the matter settled relatively quickly. Subsequent counsel indicated that his representation of L.S. was more difficult due to Respondent's inactivity on the case.
8. ODC interviewed a former employee of Respondent's who reported that Respondent was regularly out of the office and often failed to communicate with clients and move their legal matters forward diligently.
9. Respondent's failure to act with reasonable diligence or make reasonable efforts to expedite L.S.'s case constitutes a violation of Rules 1.3 and 3.2, MRPC.
10. Respondent's failure to keep L.S. apprised of the status of her matter constitutes a violation of Rule 1.4, MRPC.
Count Two
11. ODC realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 2 of the General Allegations and paragraphs 3 through 10, as if fully restated in this Count Two.
12. In Respondent's communication to ODC, he denied making any demand to the insurer, and acknowledged he did not communicate with them, nor were medical records requested. Respondent advised ODC of his strategy to wait six months to a year to allow L.S. continued medical treatment so she could "maximize" her damage recovery.
13. By Respondent's failure to request medical records, contact insurers - and either ask that the current bills be paid, or make a demand pursuant to Ridley, he violated Rule 1.1, MRPC.
WHEREFORE, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel prays:
1. That a Citation be issued to the Respondent, to which shall be attached a copy of the complaint, requiring Respondent, within twenty-one (21) days after service thereof, to file a written answer to the complaint;
2. That a formal hearing be had on the allegations of this complaint before an Adjudicatory Panel of the Commission;
3. That the Adjudicatory Panel of the Commission make a report of its findings and recommendations after a formal hearing to the Montana Supreme Court, and, in the event the Adjudicatory Panel finds the facts warrant disciplinary action and recommends discipline, that the Commission also recommend the nature and extent of appropriate disciplinary action, including an award of costs and expenses incurred in investigating and prosecuting this matter; and,
4. For such other and further relief as deemed necessary and proper. DATED this 26th day of January, 2023. OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL By: Pamela D. Bucy Chief Disciplinary Counsel