Title: Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bradley

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

Butler County Bar Association v. Bradley. 
1 
[Cite as Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bradley (1996), ____Ohio St. 3d _____.] 
2 
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Public reprimand -- Work 
3 
influenced or controlled by a party other than the client. 
4 
 
(No. 96-523 -- Submitted April 15, 1996 -- Decided July 3, 1996). 
5 
 
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
6 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 94-19. 
7 
 
The Butler County Bar Association (“relator”) filed a complaint on 
8 
April 18, 1994, charging respondent, Ronald L. Bradley of Cincinnati, Ohio, 
9 
Attorney Registration No. 0005279, with violating several Disciplinary 
10 
Rules.  Respondent filed an answer asserting that his conduct was in 
11 
compliance with the Code of Professional Responsibility.  The parties 
12 
prepared stipulations which were admitted in evidence at a May 15, 1995 
13 
hearing on the matter before a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
14 
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”).  At the hearing 
15 
the following facts were adduced. 
16 
 
The respondent, a specialist in estate planning, was present at several 
17 
seminars on that subject conducted by insurance agent, Richard Villers, in 
18 
 
2
the offices of Home Federal Savings and Loan Association and attended by 
1 
Helen K. Dalrymple.  After one seminar in early 1991, where respondent 
2 
answered general questions concerning legal matters, it was stipulated that 
3 
Dalrymple briefly spoke with respondent personally following the 
4 
presentation.  As a result of her talk with respondent and her attendance at 
5 
the seminar, Dalrymple decided to create a living trust.  She contacted 
6 
Villers, with whom she had discussed her financial situation many times, 
7 
and he recommended that respondent be the lawyer to prepare the living 
8 
trust. 
9 
 
Dalrymple gave her financial documents and  $850 in checks payable 
10 
to respondent to Villers who had quoted that amount as respondent’s fee. 
11 
[Dep. p. 26]  Villers transmitted both the checks and the financial 
12 
information to respondent.  When respondent called Dalrymple for further 
13 
information, he told her that because of her previous marriage and children 
14 
by that marriage, more work would be involved than previously anticipated, 
15 
and he would require an additional fee of  $800.  She refused to pay any 
16 
additional fee. 
17 
 
3
 
Respondent prepared first drafts of various documents consisting of a 
1 
six-page will, several powers of attorney, and a living will with related 
2 
documents, all totaling forty-one pages and a seventy-two-page trust 
3 
agreement made up of eighteen sections.  He took them to Dalrymple’s 
4 
home; Dalrymple perceived them as a huge portfolio of documents and 
5 
refused to execute them, believing them too extensive for her purposes.  
6 
Dalrymple asked that the $850 be refunded.  Respondent declined to return 
7 
the fee, but offered to make any changes to the documents desired by 
8 
Dalrymple.  Dalrymple then took the documents to another attorney who 
9 
prepared a living trust for her for $250. 
10 
 
Dalrymple contacted Villers about a refund of the fee, and he told her 
11 
that he intended to recover the full $850 from respondent.  When Villers 
12 
was unsuccessful, Dalrymple contacted the Butler County Bar Association 
13 
in April 1993 to complain about her dealings with respondent.  In 1995, 
14 
during the course of these proceedings, respondent sent Dalrymple $250 in 
15 
partial reimbursement of the fee paid to him. 
16 
 
Respondent stipulated that he had violated DR 5-107(B) (avoiding 
17 
influence by one other than the client).  The panel so found and 
18 
 
4
recommended that a public reprimand be imposed.  Upon its review of the 
1 
record, the board additionally found that the respondent did not meet 
2 
privately with Dalrymple prior to drafting the proposed documents, and 
3 
adopted the panel’s recommendation that respondent receive a public 
4 
reprimand. 
5 
_________________________________ 
6 
 
James G. Robinson and James Grevey, for relator. 
7 
 
Charles W. Kettlewell and Mark H. Aultman,  for respondent. 
8 
__________________________  
9 
 
Per Curiam.  We concur in the findings of misconduct by the board.  
10 
After reviewing both the record and the board’s report, we conclude that 
11 
Dalrymple’s estate planning information was transmitted to respondent by a 
12 
non-lawyer and that the non-lawyer set the initial fee before either the client 
13 
or the non-lawyer consulted with respondent.  The respondent entered into a 
14 
relationship that allowed the client to perceive that the setting of a fee, the 
15 
obtaining of information, and the possible refund of the fee could be 
16 
controlled by a non-lawyer.  An attorney should avoid even the perception 
17 
that his or her work can be influenced or controlled by a party other than the 
18 
 
5
client.  We agree with the board that a public reprimand is warranted and 
1 
respondent is so reprimanded.  Costs taxed to the respondent. 
2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
3 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK 
4 
and STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
5 
 
6