The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 82 Ohio St.3d 261.]
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BRADLEY.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bradley, 1998-Ohio-236.]
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.
__________________
{¶ 1} 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.
{¶ 2} 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.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
__________________
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Mark H. Aultman, for respondent.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 3} 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.
__________________
2