TO BE PUBLISHED 

,iularrtur (Courf of 71.firufuritv, 

2014-SC-000198-KB 

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION MOVANT 

V. IN SUPREME COURT 

MARK A. BRAMBLE RESPONDENT 

OPINION AND ORDER 

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 

matteis 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 

2 
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 its lawyer member, its substance clearly allows temporary 

3 
suspension under the circumstances. As such, the lack of a final disciplinary 

order is not fatal to the petition. 

Similarly, the fact that the KBA has proceeded by its own petition for 

reciprocal discipline under SCR 3.435, rather than a petition by the Inquiry 

Commission or its lawyer member under SCR 3.165, does not bar the 

imposition of a temporary suspension. In his response to the petition, Bramble 

states that "he does not oppose the motion for Reciprocal Discipline ... and has 

no objection to the relief sought therein." He also states that he has "not 

practiced law in Kentucky since November of 2011." This amounts to a waiver 

of the requirements of SCR 3.435 and 3.165. But SCR 3.165 is the better rule 

to address Bramble's situation, since he has not been disciplined per se by the 

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, which has instead chosen to 

temporarily suspend him based on its belief that he poses a danger to the 

public and either suffers under a disability or is accused of committing 

misconduct. 

This waiver also applies to the ordinary practice of first ordering the 

attorney to show cause under SCR 3.435. That procedural step is unnecessary 

in this case, as Bramble does not oppose the petition or the relief it seeks. 

For those reasons, this Court sees no reason not to grant the KBA's 

petition. Indeed, Bramble's circumstances are precisely the type for which our 

own temporary suspension rule was designed. It is evident to this Court "that 

probable cause exists to believe that [Bramble's] conduct poses a substantial 

threat of harm to his clients or to the public," SCR 3.165(1)(b), and "that 

4 
probable cause exists to believe that [Bramble] is mentally disabled or is 

addicted to intoxicants or drugs and probable cause exists to believe he[] does 

not have the physical or mental fitness to continue to practice law," SCR 

3.165(1)(d). Moreover, a temporary suspension under this rule does not have 

the same after-effects as a disciplinary suspension based on a final finding of 

misconduct. That is the better outcome because Bramble's disability may pass, 

he may be acquitted of the criminal charges against him, and he may 

ultimately be found not to have committed any misconduct. 

Order 

Seeing no reason why Bramble should not be subjected to identical 

discipline in this state under SCR 3.435, and finding that his temporary 

suspension is appropriate under SCR 3.165, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

1. The Kentucky Bar Association's petition for reciprocal 

discipline is GRANTED. Respondent, Mark A. Bramble, is suspended 

from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, effective on 

the date of the entry of this order. Bramble's suspension shall continue 

until this order is superseded by a subsequent order of this Court. 

2. To the extent necessary, given his claim not to have 

practiced law in this state since 2011, and to the extent possible, given 

that he may currently be incarcerated, Bramble shall, within 10 days of 

the date of entry of this order, notify in writing any and all clients in this 

Commonwealth of his inability to continue to represent them and shall 

furnish copies of such written notifications to the Office of Bar Counsel. 

5 
3. Bramble shall, to the extent reasonably possible, 

immediately cancel and cease any and all advertising activities in which 

he is engaged in this Commonwealth. 

All sitting. All concur. 

ENTERED: August 21, 2014. 

6