Title: Clermont Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bradford

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

CLERMONT COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION V. BRADFORD. 
[Cite as Clermont Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bradford (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Failure to avoid the 
appearance of impropriety — Using a confidence or secret of a client to 
gain a personal advantage — Failure to refuse employment if the interest 
of another client may impair the independent professional judgment of the 
attorney — Engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to 
practice law — Preparing a will in which the attorney is named a 
beneficiary. 
 
(No. 97-806 — Submitted July 7, 1997 — Decided November 5, 1997.) 
 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-18. 
 
On February 23, 1993, Mattcia Gasnik, daughter of Mary Greathouse, who 
died on February 7, 1993, consulted attorney J. Robert True about probating her 
mother’s estate.  Gasnik did not like the advice True gave her.  On March 1, 1993, 
Gasnik and Mary’s other children then consulted respondent, Douglas J. Bradford 
of Batavia, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0004855, with respect to the probate 
of the estate.  At that meeting, Gasnik delivered to respondent certificates of 
deposit and the will of Mary Greathouse.  Gasnik also gave respondent the will of 
Charles Greathouse, Mary’s husband, who died on February 23, 1993.  While at 
respondent’s office, Gasnik and the other children signed an application to probate 
the will of Mary Greathouse and an application for authority to administer the 
estate of Mary Greathouse.  During the next eight days, Gasnik delivered other 
documents relating to the Mary Greathouse estate to respondent.  
 
Sometime before March 10, 1993, respondent informed Gasnik that the 
documents he had examined indicated that most of the bank accounts were in the 
 
2
name of Charles Greathouse, who survived Mary.  Because Charles Greathouse’s 
will provided that his property would pass to his wife but made no provision for 
distribution if his wife predeceased him, Charles Greathouse’s estate would be 
distributed as though he had died intestate.  Respondent told Gasnik that, in his 
opinion, the property in Charles’s estate would be distributed to Charles’s 
grandchildren.  Charles had a son from a previous marriage who adopted two 
children; however, Charles’s son predeceased him. 
 
Upon hearing respondent’s opinion that Charles’s grandchildren would 
receive the estate assets, Gasnik told respondent not to take any further action with 
respect to Mary’s estate and not to contact Charles’s grandchildren.  However, 
respondent had already placed a telephone call to California in an attempt to locate 
Charles’s grandchildren.  One of the grandchildren of Charles then called 
respondent and requested that he represent the estate of Charles Greathouse.  On 
March 30, 1993, respondent presented the will of Charles Greathouse for probate 
and was appointed administrator of the estate with will annexed.  Subsequently, 
respondent, as representative of Charles’s estate, was involved in several 
adversary proceedings with the Mary Greathouse heirs.  Gasnik filed her initial 
grievance with relator, Clermont County Bar Association, in April 1993. 
 
In 1992 respondent drafted a revised will for Mary R. Haines, a long-time 
friend of respondent’s father, attorney Ray Bradford of Clermont County.  The 
will, originally drafted by attorney Robert Ringland in 1980, contained a bequest 
of $20,000 to Ray Bradford and, if he did not survive, to respondent.  The revised 
will drafted by respondent contained the same provision.  Ray Bradford died in 
1993, and Haines died in 1995.  After Haines died, respondent, serving as executor 
of her estate, asked for instructions from the probate court.  All interested parties 
 
3
were served, and the court made a finding that the bequest to respondent was valid 
and not the result of undue influence. 
 
Based on Gasnik’s grievance and the facts surrounding the Haines will, 
relator filed a second amended complaint charging respondent with violations of 
several Disciplinary Rules.  After respondent filed an answer, a panel of the Board 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) 
received evidence consisting of stipulations, video depositions, and exhibits. 
 
The panel found with respect to the Gasnik grievance that respondent 
violated DR 9-101 (failure to avoid the appearance of impropriety), 4-101(B)(3) 
(using a confidence or secret of a client to gain a personal advantage), 5-105 
(failure to refuse to accept employment if the interest of another client may impair 
the independent professional judgment of the lawyer), and 1-102(A)(6) (engaging 
in conduct that adversely reflects upon the fitness to practice law).  With respect to 
the Haines matter, the panel found that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6) and 5-
101(A)(2)1 (preparing a will in which the lawyer is named a beneficiary).  The 
panel recommended that respondent be publicly reprimanded.  The board adopted 
the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Gary A. Rosenhoffer, for relator. 
 
Dinsmore & Shohl, L.L.P., Wiley Dinsmore and Mark A. VanderLaan, for 
respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We accept the findings and conclusions of the board.  In 
imposing an appropriate sanction, we consider the duty that has been violated, the 
mental state of the lawyer, the actual or potential injury caused by the misconduct, 
and the existence of mitigating factors. 
 
4
 
While the facts in this case indicate a violation of the Disciplinary Rules as 
found by the board, the record also indicates that in the matter of the Mary 
Greathouse estate, respondent believed not that he had been hired to represent the 
heirs of Mary, but that he was merely one of the lawyers under consideration by 
the heirs to represent the estate.  Although respondent made initial contact with the 
heirs of Charles Greathouse as a part of his preliminary investigation of Mary’s 
estate, all evidence indicates that he was no longer under consideration as 
potential counsel for the estate of Mary or for the heirs of Mary when he was hired 
by the heirs of Charles.  Finally, respondent caused no financial harm to any of the 
parties.  The litigation between Charles’s heirs and Mary’s heirs would have been 
necessary no matter who were the attorneys for the estates.  Further, the estates of 
both Mary and Charles were administered as they would have been had some 
lawyer other than respondent represented Charles’s estate. 
 
While it is true that respondent made minor changes to the Haines will, he 
did not draft the original will, nor did he insert or change those provisions which 
made him a contingent remainderman.  Moreover, the probate court found, after 
all parties were duly notified of the proceedings, that respondent did not exercise 
undue influence over the testator. 
 
We adopt the board’s recommendation and hereby publicly reprimand 
respondent.  Costs of these proceeding are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
FOOTNOTE: 
 
5
 
1. 
We note that respondent, in his objections to the recommendation of the 
board, correctly notes that DR 5-101(A)(2) was not in existence at the time the 
second Haines will was executed.