Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Bradley

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BRADLEY. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bradley (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Directly mailing self-
laudatory brochures to the general public and publishing the brochure as 
an insert in a local newspaper. 
(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. 
__________________ 
 
2
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Mark H. Aultman, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  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.