Defiant attorney awaits cold day in hell for psych exam
When a state disciplinary judge suspended Mark Brennan's license to practice law for a year, finding that he intentionally engaged in "obstreperous behavior" in winning a $1.2 million federal verdict against the City of Denver, one requirement for reinstatement was that Brennan submit to an independent medical evaluation.
The combative Brennan thinks that condition is illegal. And he's even more incensed that disciplinary judge William Lucero is asking him to see a psychiatrist -- and share the results of that exam with opposing counsel -- before his motion for a stay of execution will be considered.
"To be plain, Sir," Brennan wrote in a recent letter to Lucero, "Hell will most assuredly freeze over before I see my most private medical and personal information and history disseminated to my worst enemies on the face fo the Earth, who have to date demonstrated only the most complete disregard for the truth and the law imaginable."
In 2006 Brennan prevailed in a contentious trial before Judge Robert Blackburn on behalf of William Cadorna, a Denver firefighter who claimed to have been fired because of age discrimination. But the million-plus verdict was later thrown out by Blackburn, who denounced Brennan's "boorish and unprofessional behavior" during the case, the subject of my 2007 feature "Blackburned."
During the disciplinary hearing that resulted from Brennan's performance, Judge Lucero slapped Brennan with two contempt citations. Brennan called the proceedings a "kangaroo court" and even had a physical confrontation with Kim Ikeler, the prosecutor from the state's Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, in the waning moments of the proceeding.
Ikeler has argued that Brennan is "an unacceptable and uncontrollable risk to the court system." In discussions with Lucero, Brennan indicated that he might submit to a psychiatric examination but didn't want the results going to Ikeler's office.
"This is not so much an effort to help the Hearing Board make a reasoned decision concerning my entitlement to a stay," Brennan wrote to Lucero, "but rather an after-the-fact effort to rehabilitate the record with grounds the Hearing Board otherwise lacks for denying my motion."
To read Brennan's motion for a stay and Ikeler's response, see the Nov. 13 entry here on knowyourcourts.com.