Attorney Brady Henderson was admitted to the practice of law in Wisconsin on November 6, 2018, State Bar Number 116435. Attorney Henderson's license to practice law is currently administratively suspended for the following reasons: under SCR 10.03(6), for failing to pay his annual dues and assessments; under SCR 20:1.15(i)(4), for failing to comply with the annual trust account certification requirement; and under SCR 31.10, for failing to comply with CLE report.ing requirements. This reprimand is based on his misconduct in two client matters.

First Matter

In November 2019, a client hired Henderson to bring a civil case in federal court. Henderson initially charged the client for services on an hourly basis at the rate of $200 per hour. In approximately August 2020, Henderson and the client renegotiated the rate and basis of his fee They agreed that beginning in August 2020, Henderson would bill his services at an hourly rate of $100 per hour, and Henderson would be entitled to receive an additional sum from any judgment or settlement the client received from the case, equal to an additional $100 per hour for services provided beginning in August 2020. Over the course of the representation, the client paid Henderson a total of $2,200 in advanced fees. Henderson deposited the advanced fees into his trust account and disbursed earned fees to his business account after providing billing statements to the client.

Henderson filed the complaint in federal district court in August 2020. Between August 2020 and June 2021, the parties discussed potential settlement and prepared Rule 26 disclosures. After June 29, 2021, Henderson failed to conduct any discovery, perform any substantive work on the case, or communicate with his client regarding the status of the case. On February 9, 2022, the court held a scheduling conference, at which it recommended settlement terms to the parties. During the conference, Henderson and opposing counsel agreed to present the terms to their clients, and the court administratively closed the case. From February 9 to August 29, 2022, Henderson failed to inform his client of the proposed settlement terms and the court's administrative closure of the case.

In August 2022, opposing counsel informed Henderson's client that the court had closed the case. In a phone conversation on August 29, 2022, the client told Henderson that the client did not accept the proposed settlement and wanted to litigate the case. Henderson told his client he would file a document with the court to reopen the case. Thereafter, he failed to perform any further work on the case or communicate to the client that he planned to take no further action. After their conversation, the client attempted to contact Henderson several times by phone and email, including emails sent on September 7, 2022, September 15, 2022, and January 1, 2023. The client also stopped by Henderson's office multiple times at different times of day, but the office was always closed. Henderson never responded to the client.

On May 21 , 2024, Henderson admitted to OLR that he owed the client a refund of$230 in unearned fees, but as of August 10, 2025, Henderson had not refunded any amounts to the client.

Second Matter

In February 2022, a client hired Henderson to file a lawsuit in state court. The case was removed to federal court, which dismissed the federal claim and remanded the remaining claims back to state court. On November 16, 2022, following a scheduling conference at which Henderson was present, the state circuit court issued a scheduling order setting certain deadlines, including (1) Plaintiffs witness list and itemization of damages due January 30, 2023; (2) Defendant's witness list due February 20, 2023; (3) close of discovery on July 14, 2023; and (4) summary judgment motion filing deadline of August 14, 2023. The court also set the case for final pretrial on October 9, 2023. Henderson failed to provide a copy of the scheduling order to the client or otherwise inform the client of its contents. Henderson never filed a witness list or itemization of damages in the case.

On February 14, 2023, opposing counsel served written discovery requests on Henderson. These requests included requests for admission, interrogatories, and requests for production. Henderson failed to provide a copy of the written discovery requests to the client or ask the client to provide written responses. Henderson also failed to provide a response to the written discovery requests by the statutory deadline. On April 28, 2023, more than a month and a half after discovery responses were due, Henderson sent opposing counsel unsigned, partial responses to the discovery requests, including responses to the requests for admission and some of the interrogatories. Henderson had not shown the client the responses before sending them to opposing counsel, and Henderson did not send the client copies of what he sent to opposing counsel. Henderson failed to respond to the requests for production or the remaining interrogatories, or provide further information to opposing counsel, and never provided complete and signed discovery responses to opposing counsel.

Henderson did not communicate with the client after April 2023. Although the client periodically reached out to Henderson by phone in May, June, and July 2023, the client did not reach him and he did not return the client's phone calls.

On May 16, 2023, opposing counsel sent a notice to take the client's deposition on June 8, 2023. Henderson responded that the date "should work" and he would confirm with his client. Henderson failed to inform his client of the deposition notice.

On May 26, 2023, opposing counsel wrote to Henderson demanding the remaining discovery responses. Opposing counsel stated that, if they did not receive them, they would seek the court's assistance. On May 31, 2023, opposing counsel filed a motion for sanctions against Henderson's client for failure to respond to discovery requests or comply with the scheduling order. The motion hearing was scheduled for June 14, 2023. Henderson failed to file a response to the motion or to inform the client of the motion or the motion hearing.

Neither Henderson nor his client appeared for the deposition on June 8, 2023, or at the June 14, 2023 motion hearing. The court granted opposing counsel's motion and imposed sanctions against Henderson's client. The court issued a written order on June 23, 2023, stating Henderson's client "may not introduce proof of damages into evidence in this matter and may not call any witnesses to testify at trial in this matter. Plaintiff shall also pay Defendant's reasonable expenses in bringing the Motion." Henderson failed to inform his client of the court's June 23, 2023 order.

In July 2023, Henderson's client discovered the status of the case by looking up the case. The client hired successor counsel. After further proceedings, on October 10, 2023, the circuit court ultimately issued a written order denying the client's motion for relief from sanctions and to amend the scheduling order. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment because the sanctions prevented the client from proving essential elements of the claims. The client appealed the circuit court's decision.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's decision and remanded the case to amend the scheduling order and permit the client to resume the case on the merits. As the court of appeals stated: "Both parties agree, as the circuit court found, that [the client's] original attorney failed to properly prosecute her claims, violated the scheduling order, failed to timely and fully respond to discovery requests, and thereby committed sanctionable conduct."

By failing to timely refund unearned fees to the first client, Henderson violated SCR 20:1.16(d).

By failing to diligently advance his clients' interests in their cases, Henderson violated SCR 20:1.3.

By failing to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of their cases, Henderson violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3).

By failing to reasonably consult with his clients, thereby preventing the clients from making informed decisions regarding the representations, Henderson violated SCR 20:1.4(b).

By failing to promptly withdraw from the representations when health and family issues affected his ability to represent his clients, Henderson violated SCR 20:1.16(a) (1).

Henderson has no prior discipline. In further mitigation of the sanction, OLR has represented that he was cooperative with the investigation, acknowledged his misconduct, and experienced health concerns and family issues at the time of the misconduct.

OLR confirms that Henderson satisfied the pre-condition of this public reprimand by making reasonable efforts to refund $230 to the first client.

In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney Brady Henderson is hereby publicly reprimanded.