Case Title: Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bradley

Citation: 1999-Ohio-28

Docket Number: 19991114

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-11-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bradley, 87 Ohio St.3d 213, 1999-Ohio-28.] 
 
 
 
 
 
BUTLER COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. BRADLEY. 
[Cite as Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bradley (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 213.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation — Engaging in 
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice — Neglect of an 
entrusted legal matter — Failing to deposit clients’ funds in identifiable 
bank accounts — Failing to render appropriate accounts to clients — 
Failing to promptly pay, upon request, funds which client is entitled to 
receive. 
(No. 99-1114 – Submitted August 25, 1999 – Decided November 10, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-28. 
 
On November 5, 1996, Joyce Piazza and her brother, Terry Schultheis, 
retained respondent, Ronald L. Bradley of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney Registration 
No. 0005279, to handle the estate of their deceased mother, Agnes Schultheis.  
Piazza paid respondent a $10,000 attorney fee and she and her brother signed a 
legal services agreement with respondent.  On November 7, 1996, respondent 
opened the estate of Agnes Schultheis in the Butler County Probate Court. 
 
On December 18, 1996, Piazza retained respondent to handle the estate of 
her deceased father, Robert Schultheis, for a fee of $5,000, and Piazza again signed 
a legal services agreement with respondent.  Respondent, however, never opened 
an estate for Robert Schultheis. 
 
Between December 18, 1996, and June 1997, Piazza met with respondent 
and his staff several times to prepare the inventory for the estate of Agnes 
Schultheis.  On June 5, 1997, after discovering that respondent had not filed any 
inventory in the case, Piazza advised respondent that she had contacted another 
 
 
2
lawyer to take over the case and that she wanted her files and papers back.  The 
next day, respondent filed an inventory in the case.  On the same day, Terry 
Schultheis met with respondent and demanded that he return the files and attorney 
fees for the two estate matters.  Respondent told Schultheis that he did not have the 
money to pay back the attorney fees because he had deposited it in his general 
office account rather than in his IOLTA and had used the money to pay office 
operating expenses.  Although respondent promised that he would pay the money 
back in thirty days, he did not. 
 
At the time respondent received $15,000 in attorney fees from Piazza for the 
two estate matters, he had not informed her that a Butler County Probate Court rule 
regulated attorney fees in probate court matters.  The rule provided that attorney 
fees for estate administration could not be paid until the final account had been 
prepared for filing and that the fees were subject to review and approval by the 
probate court. 
 
On June 8, 1998, relator, Butler County Bar Association, filed a complaint 
charging respondent with violating several Disciplinary Rules. The matter was 
submitted upon stipulations, testimony, and exhibits to a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
The panel found the facts as previously set forth and concluded that 
respondent’s conduct violated 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted 
legal matter), 9-102(A)(2) (failing to deposit clients’ funds paid to lawyer in 
identifiable bank account with no funds of lawyer deposited therein and forbidding 
withdrawal of any disputed portion of funds), 9-102(B)(1) (failing to promptly 
notify client of receipt of funds), 9-102(B)(3) (failing to render appropriate 
accounts to clients of their funds in lawyer’s possession), and 9-102(B)(4) (failing 
 
 
3
to promptly pay, upon request, to client the funds in lawyer’s possession which the 
client is entitled to receive).  The panel further found no mitigating evidence and 
noted that respondent had been disciplined on two previous occasions.  See Butler 
Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bradley (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 1, 665 N.E.2d 1089; Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Bradley (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 261, 695 N.E.2d 248.  The panel 
recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio and that his reinstatement be conditioned upon his restitution of $15,000 plus 
interest at ten percent per annum from the date of the hearing in the disciplinary 
case.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the 
panel, except that it recommended that the interest on the $15,000 commence from 
the dates that Piazza paid respondent by checks. 
__________________ 
 
Stephen J. Brewer and Ralph A. Henderson, for relator. 
 
James N. Perry, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board, to which respondent concurs.  A sanction of at least an indefinite 
suspension is warranted for misconduct that includes violations of DR 1-
102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 6-101(A)(3), and 9-102(B).  See, e.g., Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Reinstatler (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 220, 556 N.E.2d 521; Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Hipp (1990), 48 Ohio St.3d 16, 548 N.E.2d 947.  Respondent is hereby 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio, and his reinstatement is 
conditioned on his making restitution of $15,000 to Piazza plus interest at a rate of 
ten percent per annum from the dates that Piazza gave respondent the checks.  
Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
 
4
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.