Mr. Bartholomew took a vacation to Ireland from March 15, 2001 to March 26, 2001. Mr. Bartholomew’s other employee, a legal assistant, was also out of the office during that time period.

Mr. Brady typically had no responsibility for financial and business matters for the firm. During Mr. Bartholomew’s absence, however, Mr. Brady was authorized to take care of financial matters that required immediate attention by using the stamped facsimile signature of Mr. Bartholomew on checks that were to be drawn on the law office business checking account. During Mr. Bartholomew’s absence, Mr. Brady issued at least one such check to pay for the reproduction of bank records for a client.

Shortly after Mr. Bartholomew left on vacation, Mr. Brady calculated that his own personal checking account would become substantially overdrawn unless he made a deposit into the account. Mr. Brady subsequently drew a total of six checks on the Bartholomew law office business checking account, made payable to himself or to cash, totaling $4,000, and stamped Mr. Bartholomew’s signature on the checks. Mr. Brady promptly negotiated the checks for his own use.

Mr. Brady reported his actions to Mr. Bartholomew on March 27, 2001, on the morning that Mr. Bartholomew returned to the office from his vacation. By letter dated March 28, 2001, Mr. Bartholomew notified the Office of Lawyer Regulation of the matter, stating that he was doing so under his mandatory duty to report professional misconduct, pursuant to SCR 20:8.3(a). Mr. Bartholomew’s letter was received by the Office of Lawyer Regulation on April 5, 2001.

Mr. Brady self-reported his conduct to the Office of Lawyer Regulation by letter dated April 4, 2001, which was received by the Office of Lawyer Regulation on April 9, 2001.

Mr. Brady states that during the three or four months preceding March, 2001, he had experienced difficult financial circumstances, and during that period, he had requested and received from Mr. Bartholomew cash advances, then totaling about $2,000, as short-term loans. Mr. Brady had not repaid any of those amounts at the time of Mr. Bartholomew’s departure for vacation. Mr. Brady states that his financial problems were becoming acute through the early months of 2001, and he had planned to secure additional funds by expanding the mortgage on his home.

Mr. Brady acknowledges that before Atty. Bartholomew left for vacation, they had never discussed whether Mr. Brady’s personal financial circumstances would constitute any sort of compelling circumstance justifying removing funds from the law office business checking account. Mr. Brady states that “the rationale for withdrawing these funds was my own egregious presumption based upon Jim Bartholomew’s previous generosity extended under similar circumstances.” Mr. Brady states that his rationalized presumption did not excuse his withdrawing funds without Atty. Bartholomew’s authorization. Mr. Brady states that he deeply regrets his actions.

Mr. Brady states that when he wrote the checks to himself on the law office checking account, he knew that the account balance in the law office checking account was sufficient to cover the checks. Mr. Brady states he expected to reimburse the office account at the end of the month.

Mr. Brady states that when he informed Mr. Bartholomew of his actions, he also disclosed that he has an addiction to gambling. Mr. Brady states that he made the initial withdrawal of $1,000 to cover the overdraft that was looming over his account. Mr. Brady subsequently made five subsequent withdrawals from the account and unsuccessfully gambled those funds away in an attempt to win back money to cover what he had withdrawn.

Mr. Brady states that after he and Mr. Bartholomew made inquiries about treatment options, Mr. Brady was evaluated in the psychiatry department of the University of Minnesota and has been admitted into a test program where drug therapy is used to control the urge to gamble. Mr. Brady believes his addiction was a compelling factor in his rationalizing the withdrawal of funds from the account, but he does not believe his addiction constitutes a medical incapacity.

By letter dated May 1, 2001, Mr. Bartholomew informed OLR that on April 19, 2001, Mr. Brady had returned the funds that he had withdrawn from the law firm’s business checking account, and he also repaid the personal loans to Mr. Bartholomew as well.

By writing six checks totaling $4,000 to himself or to cash on the law office checking account, by stamping the signature of his employer, Mr. Bartholomew, on the checks, and in negotiating the checks for his personal use, all without Mr. Bartholomew’s authorization or approval, Mr. Brady violated SCR 20:8.4(c), which states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

Mr. Brady has prior discipline. On October 31, 1997, Mr. Brady consented to imposition of a public reprimand by the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (the predecessor agency to the Office of Lawyer Regulation) for failing to make full disclosure of his financial situation to a client from whom he borrowed money. In 1987, Mr. Brady requested and received three loans from the client in a total amount of $25,000. Mr. Brady signed interest-bearing promissory notes, but he fell behind on the interest payments and never made payments on the principal. Mr. Brady executed a number of renewal notes from 1988 to 1993, which included accrued interest not paid. Finally, in the spring of 1994, Mr. Brady informed the client that he was insolvent and that he hoped to pay the client in the future. The Board concluded that Mr. Brady violated SCR 20.27(1)(1984) and SCR 20:1.8(a)(1) because he failed to make full disclosure of his financial situation to the client, both at the times of each of the 1987 loans and when Brady signed the most recent renewal note, which was in 1993. The Board found that because there was a lack of a full disclosure of Mr. Brady’s financial situation, the loan transactions were not fair and reasonable to the client, nor could the client make informed decisions about the loans or renewal notes.

In accordance with SCR 21.09(2), Attorney Charles E. Brady is hereby publicly reprimanded.