Case Title: In the Matter of Bradley David Cooper

Citation: 

Docket Number: 19S-DI-00418

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2021-02-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 19S-DI-418 
In the Matter of 
Bradley D. Cooper, 
 Respondent. 
Decided: February 3, 2021 
Attorney Discipline Action 
Hearing Officer AmyMarie Travis 
Per Curiam Opinion 
Chief Justice Rush and Justices David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff concur. 
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Feb 03 2021, 10:12 am
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-DI-418 | February 3, 2021 
Page 2 of 6 
Per curiam. 
We find that Respondent, Bradley Cooper, engaged in attorney 
misconduct. For this misconduct, we conclude that Respondent should be 
suspended from the practice of law in this state for at least four years 
without automatic reinstatement. 
The matter is before the Court on the report of the hearing officer 
appointed by this Court to hear evidence on the Indiana Supreme Court 
Disciplinary Commission’s verified disciplinary complaint. Respondent’s 
1993 admission to this state’s bar subjects him to this Court’s disciplinary 
jurisdiction. See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4. 
Procedural Background and Facts  
During the overnight hours of March 4 and 5, 2019, Respondent 
brutally beat and confined his girlfriend in his home. During this time he 
used his victim’s cell phone to send various messages while pretending to 
be her. Eventually the victim managed to flee Respondent’s house and 
summon help from a neighbor. When law enforcement officers arrived, 
Respondent locked the victim’s phone and refused to unlock it. Shortly 
thereafter Respondent made statements to the media falsely accusing the 
victim of having attacked him.  
Respondent was serving as the elected prosecutor in Johnson County at 
the time he committed his crimes. He was charged with confinement, 
domestic battery, identity deception, and official misconduct, and pled 
guilty to those four charges. Respondent resigned his elected office 
following his sentencing hearing in July 2019, simultaneously with his 
removal from office by operation of law due to his felony convictions.  
We issued an order of interim suspension in this matter on August 2, 
2019, which has remained in effect during the pendency of these 
disciplinary proceedings. The Commission filed a disciplinary complaint 
against Respondent, alleging violations as set forth below, and we 
appointed a hearing officer. Respondent admitted the charged violations 
and, in July 2020, the matter was heard on sanction alone. The hearing 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-DI-418 | February 3, 2021 
Page 3 of 6 
officer later issued her report, which was subsequently amended. This 
matter now is fully briefed by the parties and before us for final 
disposition. 
Discussion and Discipline 
Respondent admits, and we find, that Respondent violated these 
Indiana Professional Conduct Rules prohibiting the following misconduct: 
8.4(b):  Committing criminal acts that reflect adversely on the 
lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. 
8.4(c):  Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation. 
We turn to the issue of appropriate sanction. Respondent urges 
imposition of a short suspension with automatic reinstatement, likening 
his case to other disciplinary cases involving acts of battery committed by 
elected officials, deputy prosecutors, and other attorneys. However, any 
similarity between those cases and this one ends there. Respondent’s acts 
of battery were more brutal and his victim more vulnerable; his criminal 
conduct involved not only violence but dishonesty; and he is a repeat 
disciplinary offender. All of these factors elevate this case into a far more 
serious realm requiring, at a minimum, that Respondent demonstrate his 
professional fitness before ever again practicing law in this state. 
The most difficult question confronting us is whether Respondent 
should be afforded such an opportunity. The Commission urges, and the 
hearing officer recommended, that Respondent be permanently disbarred, 
and there is support for that position. Not only is Respondent a repeat 
disciplinary offender, his prior misconduct also involved dishonesty and a 
similar lack of control over his impulses and anger. Matter of Cooper, 78 
N.E.3d 1098 (Ind. 2017). And here, Respondent committed multiple crimes 
involving violence and dishonesty while serving as an elected prosecutor. 
Dishonest and felonious conduct committed by elected prosecutors in past 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-DI-418 | February 3, 2021 
Page 4 of 6 
cases has resulted in disbarment or resignation.1 Matter of Riddle, 700 
N.E.2d 788 (Ind. 1998); Matter of Catt, 692 N.E.2d 885 (Ind. 1998). Similar 
misconduct by other elected officials has been met with a similarly severe 
range of sanctions. See, e.g., Matter of Bean, 60 N.E.3d 1021 (Ind. 2016) 
(disbarment imposed against attorney convicted of official misconduct 
and theft committed while serving as elected clerk-treasurer); Matter of 
Philpot, 31 N.E.3d 468 (Ind. 2015) (four-year suspension without automatic 
reinstatement imposed against attorney convicted of mail fraud and theft 
committed while serving as elected county clerk); Matter of White, 54 
N.E.3d 993 (Ind. 2016) (two-year suspension without automatic 
reinstatement imposed against attorney convicted of perjury, theft, and 
voting outside a precinct of residence, all committed while serving as a 
town councilman and candidate for Secretary of State).  
We also share the hearing officer’s concern that Respondent’s prior 
discipline did not prompt him to address sooner underlying factors that 
Respondent acknowledges predate his earlier misconduct. (See Amended 
Hearing Officer’s Report at 20). However, subsequent to the misconduct at 
issue here, Respondent has taken meaningful and substantial steps to 
address his alcohol use disorder and anger management issues. 
Respondent also has accepted responsibility in both his criminal and 
disciplinary proceedings for his deplorable acts, he has been compliant 
with the terms of his criminal probation, and his testimony at the final 
hearing reflects a degree of insight and remorse that distinguishes him, 
however modestly, from some other similarly-situated respondents. See, 
e.g., Riddle, 700 N.E.2d at 795-96. While these after-the-fact measures do 
not mitigate the misconduct itself, which was reprehensible, they do point 
to Respondent’s potential for rehabilitation and narrowly persuade us that 
the door to Respondent’s legal career should not be permanently and 
irrevocably closed.   
 
1 An attorney’s resignation during the pendency of a disciplinary investigation or prosecution 
is functionally equivalent to a five-year suspension without automatic reinstatement, see 
Admis. Disc. Rs. 23(17) and 23(18)(b)(1), and generally is the most severe disciplinary sanction 
imposed for attorney misconduct short of disbarment.  
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-DI-418 | February 3, 2021 
Page 5 of 6 
Respondent already has been under interim suspension for about one 
and a half years. Together with the four-year suspension we impose 
today, which is effective from the date of this opinion and not retroactive, 
Respondent will serve well over five years of suspension before becoming 
eligible to petition for reinstatement. Should Respondent seek 
reinstatement at that time, his petition will be granted only if he is able to 
prove his fitness to resume the practice of law by clear and convincing 
evidence, a burden that will be particularly steep given the severity of 
Respondent’s misconduct. See Matter of Gutman, 599 N.E.2d 604, 608 (Ind. 
1992) (“The more serious the misconduct, the greater its negative impact 
on future rehabilitation and eventual reinstatement, the greater 
Petitioner’s burden of proof to overcome the implication of unfitness 
which is conjured by the misconduct”). 
Conclusion 
The Court concludes that Respondent violated Professional Conduct 
Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(c). For Respondent’s professional misconduct, the 
Court suspends Respondent from the practice of law for a period of not 
less than four years, without automatic reinstatement, effective 
immediately. At the conclusion of the minimum period of suspension, 
Respondent may petition this Court for reinstatement to the practice of 
law in this state, provided Respondent pays the costs of this proceeding, 
fulfills the duties of a suspended attorney, and satisfies the requirements 
for reinstatement of Admission and Discipline Rule 23(18). 
The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent. The 
hearing officer appointed in this case is discharged with the Court’s 
appreciation. 
 
Rush, C.J., and David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur. 
 
 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-DI-418 | February 3, 2021 
Page 6 of 6 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  RES P O N DE N T  
James J. Bell 
Stephanie L. Grass 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  I ND I A NA SU P RE ME CO U R T  
D I SC I PL I NA R Y C OMM ISS I O N  
G. Michael Witte, Executive Director 
David E. Griffith, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana