Disciplinary Counsel v. Bradley

Ohio Supreme Court

Disciplinary Counsel v. Bradley

1998 Ohio 236, 82 Ohio St. 3d 261

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 24, 1998

Docket1998-0400

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1998 Ohio 236 (Disciplinary Counsel v. Bradley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Disciplinary Counsel v. Bradley, 1998 Ohio 236, 82 Ohio St. 3d 261 (Ohio 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 82 Ohio St.3d 261.]

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BRADLEY. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bradley, 1998-Ohio-236.] Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Public reprimand—Directly mailing self- laudatory brochures to the general public and publishing the brochure as an insert in a local newspaper. (No. 98-400—Submitted April 21, 1998—Decided June 24, 1998.) ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-55. __________________ {¶ 1} In September 1996, respondent, Ronald Lance Bradley of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0005279, began directly mailing brochures to the general public outlining the advantages of living trusts. The brochures described respondent as a “leader in the creation of quality living trust documents.” On October 6, 1996, respondent caused the brochure to be published as an insert to the Cincinnati Enquirer newspaper. {¶ 2} On June 16, 1997, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint charging that the statement in respondent’s brochure was self-laudatory and in violation of the Disciplinary Rules. After respondent filed his answer, the matter was submitted to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“board”). The parties stipulated that the language in the brochure was, in fact, self-laudatory and the panel so found. The panel concluded that respondent was in violation of DR 2-101(A)(1) (a lawyer shall not use any form of public communication that contains any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, self- laudatory, or unfair statement) and recommended that he receive a public reprimand. The board agreed with the finding, conclusion, and recommendation of the panel. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

__________________ Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. Mark H. Aultman, for respondent. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 3} We agree with the finding, conclusion, and recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent. Judgment accordingly. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 82 Ohio St.3d 261.]

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BRADLEY. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bradley, 1998-Ohio-236.] Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Public reprimand—Directly mailing self- laudatory brochures to the general public and publishing the brochure as an insert in a local newspaper. (No. 98-400—Submitted April 21, 1998—Decided June 24, 1998.) ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-55. __________________ {¶ 1} In September 1996, respondent, Ronald Lance Bradley of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0005279, began directly mailing brochures to the general public outlining the advantages of living trusts. The brochures described respondent as a “leader in the creation of quality living trust documents.” On October 6, 1996, respondent caused the brochure to be published as an insert to the Cincinnati Enquirer newspaper. {¶ 2} On June 16, 1997, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint charging that the statement in respondent’s brochure was self-laudatory and in violation of the Disciplinary Rules. After respondent filed his answer, the matter was submitted to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“board”). The parties stipulated that the language in the brochure was, in fact, self-laudatory and the panel so found. The panel concluded that respondent was in violation of DR 2-101(A)(1) (a lawyer shall not use any form of public communication that contains any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, self- laudatory, or unfair statement) and recommended that he receive a public reprimand. The board agreed with the finding, conclusion, and recommendation of the panel. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

__________________ Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. Mark H. Aultman, for respondent. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 3} We agree with the finding, conclusion, and recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent. Judgment accordingly. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1998 Ohio 236, 82 Ohio St. 3d 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/disciplinary-counsel-v-bradley-ohio-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack