From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Disciplinary Counsel v. Bradley

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jun 24, 1998
695 N.E.2d 248 (Ohio 1998)

Summary

In Disciplinary Counsel v. Bradley, 82 Ohio St.3d 261, 262, 695 N.E.2d 248 (1998), an attorney mailed to members of the general public and published in a newspaper advertising materials describing himself as a "leader in the creation of quality living trust documents."

Summary of this case from Lorain Cnty. Bar Ass'n v. Williamson

Opinion

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.

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.

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.

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

Mark H. Aultman, for respondent.


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.


Summaries of

Disciplinary Counsel v. Bradley

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jun 24, 1998
695 N.E.2d 248 (Ohio 1998)

In Disciplinary Counsel v. Bradley, 82 Ohio St.3d 261, 262, 695 N.E.2d 248 (1998), an attorney mailed to members of the general public and published in a newspaper advertising materials describing himself as a "leader in the creation of quality living trust documents."

Summary of this case from Lorain Cnty. Bar Ass'n v. Williamson
Case details for

Disciplinary Counsel v. Bradley

Case Details

Full title:OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BRADLEY

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Jun 24, 1998

Citations

695 N.E.2d 248 (Ohio 1998)
695 N.E.2d 248

Citing Cases

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Furth

In Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Grieselhuber (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 373, 678 N.E.2d 535, we held that inclusion of…

Lorain Cnty. Bar Ass'n v. Williamson

{¶ 10} To support its recommended sanction, the board cited three cases in which we publicly reprimanded…