Released for Publication September 3, 2014.
IN SUPREME COURT
OPINION AND ORDER
JOHN D. MINTON JR.,
Respondent, Mark A. Bramble, has been licensed to practice law in Kentucky since 1996 but was suspended from the practice of law in West Virginia by order entered on August 27, 2013 because he has been charged with attempted first-degree murder and wanton endangerment involving a firearm and may suffer from an impairment affecting his ability to practice law. The Kentucky Bar Association's Office of Bar Counsel has filed a petition for reciprocal discipline under SCR 3.435, and has asked this Court to require Bramble to show cause why identical reciprocal discipline against him should not be imposed in Kentucky under SCR 3.435. Bramble filed a response stating that he has no objection to the relief sought.
Bramble's last known bar roster address is P.O. Box 1307, Charleston, West Virginia 25325. His KBA Member No. is 86317, and he was admitted to the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky on August 26, 1996.
On August 12, 2013, Bramble was arrested and charged in West Virginia with two felony offenses: attempted first-degree murder and wanton endangerment with a firearm. He is alleged to have been hallucinating and to have pointed a gun at his wife, who escaped and called police, and to have then fired several gunshots at police who responded to the situation.
On August 15, 2013, the West Virginia Office of Disciplinary Counsel petitioned the Supreme Court of Appeals to temporarily suspend Bramble from the practice of law until his pending criminal and attendant disciplinary matters are concluded. The petition alleged that Bramble appeared to be suffering from a disability due to psychological distress, was incarcerated, was accused of violating the Rules of Professional Conduct, and, based on his alleged criminal acts, posed a substantial threat of irrevocable harm to the public if he was allowed to continue practicing law.
The suspension was sought under West Virginia Rule of Lawyer Disciplinary Procedure 3.27,
entitled Extraordinary Proceedings, which allows the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia to " immediately suspend the license of a lawyer who (1) either is disabled or is accused of violating the Rules of Professional Conduct and (2) poses a substantial threat of irrevocable harm to the public."
The Supreme Court of Appeals granted the petition and suspended Bramble's license to practice law. The suspension is temporary but open ended, and is set to expire no sooner than when Bramble's pending criminal and attendant disciplinary matters are concluded. Bramble notified the Office of Bar Counsel of the suspension by letter in March 2014.
Under Kentucky Supreme Court Rule 3.435(4), a lawyer shall be subject to identical discipline in the Commonwealth of Kentucky " unless [he] proves by substantial evidence: (a) a lack of jurisdiction or fraud in the out-of-state disciplinary proceeding, or (b) that the misconduct established warrants substantially different discipline in this State." SCR 3.435(4)(a)-(b). Ordinarily, this requires a final disciplinary decision, which is not present here, and requires this Court to first issue an order allowing, the attorney to try to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed. Under the circumstances, however, this Court will grant the petition and temporarily suspend Bramble.
The West Virginia rule under which Bramble has been temporarily suspended is substantially the same as our SCR 3.165. That rule allows an attorney to " be temporarily suspended from the practice of law by order of the Court" if, among other things, " [i]t appears that probable cause exists to believe that an attorney's conduct poses a substantial threat of harm to his clients or to the public," SCR 3.165(1)(b), or " [i]t appears that probable cause exists to believe that an attorney is mentally disabled or is addicted to intoxicants or drugs and probable cause exists to believe he/she does not have the physical or mental fitness to continue to practice law," SCR 3.165(1)(d). While a proceeding under this rule is to be initiated by a petition by the Inquiry Commission or ...