In the Matter of: Patrick Joseph Bradley

• Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: July 28, 2016
• Docket: 2189 DD3
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 2189 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 : Petitioner : No. 107 DB 2015 : v. : Attorney Registration No. 202416 : PATRICK JOSEPH BRADLEY, : (Montgomery County) : Respondent :

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of July, 2016, having failed to file a response to the

directive of May 12, 2016, the Rule is made absolute, and it is hereby ordered that:

1. Respondent Patrick Joseph Bradley is held in contempt for willful violation

of this Court’s Order dated July 10, 2015;

2. The President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery

County shall take such further action and enter such orders as may be necessary to

protect the rights and interests of Respondent’s clients or fiduciary entities with which he

is involved, see Pa.R.D.E. 217(g);

3. All financial institutions in which Respondent holds fiduciary funds shall

freeze such accounts pending further action by a court of appropriate jurisdiction; 4. Respondent shall:

a. immediately notify, in writing, his clients and the Board of his status

as a formerly admitted attorney and he shall provide a copy of the letter to

the Office of Disciplinary Counsel;

b. not hold himself out as an active member of the Bar of this

Commonwealth until such time as he is reinstated to the practice of law by

the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania;

c. immediately cease and desist from using the website

bradleylawllc.com, and all forms of communication, including, but not

limited to signage, letterhead, and business cards, that contain the terms

Bradley Law, LLC; and

d. not maintain an office for the practice of law until such time that he

is reinstated to the practice of law by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

The matter is referred to the Disciplinary Board for accelerated proceedings,

including a hearing, to recommend the appropriate sanction within 90 days.

Petitioner’s request for an imposition of a daily fine is denied without prejudice to

seek such relief in terms of the Board’s recommendation.

Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.