The Law Lion Logo - AI-powered legal writing assistantThe Law Lion
Home
Features
Pricing
Services
AboutBlogCasesContact
Login
Ask Law Lion AI
  1. Home
  2. >Cases
  3. >Butler County Bar Ass'n v. Bradley
Ohio Supreme Court

Butler County Bar Ass'n v. Bradley

No. 99-1114·Judge: Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney·Attorney: Stephen J. Brewer and Ralph A. Henderson, for relator., James N. Perry, for respondent.0 citations·Filed November 10, 1999

Table of Contents

  • Summary of the case Butler County Bar Ass'n v. Bradley
  • Key Issues of the case Butler County Bar Ass'n v. Bradley
  • Key Facts of the case Butler County Bar Ass'n v. Bradley
  • Decision of the case Butler County Bar Ass'n v. Bradley
  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • Per Curiam. We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the boa...

Table of Contents

  • Summary of the case Butler County Bar Ass'n v. Bradley
  • Key Issues of the case Butler County Bar Ass'n v. Bradley
  • Key Facts of the case Butler County Bar Ass'n v. Bradley
  • Decision of the case Butler County Bar Ass'n v. Bradley
  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • Per Curiam. We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the boa...

Summary of the case Butler County Bar Ass'n v. Bradley

The court adopted the board's findings and indefinitely suspended the respondent from practicing law in Ohio due to misconduct, including violations of several disciplinary rules. Reinstatement is contingent upon restitution of $15,000 to Piazza with interest.

Key Issues of the case Butler County Bar Ass'n v. Bradley

  • Misconduct in violation of disciplinary rules
  • Conditions for reinstatement

Key Facts of the case Butler County Bar Ass'n v. Bradley

  • Respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 6-101(A)(3), and 9-102(B).
  • Reinstatement requires restitution of $15,000 to Piazza plus interest.

Decision of the case Butler County Bar Ass'n v. Bradley

Indefinite suspension from the practice of law in Ohio.

Opinions

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.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

The Law Lion logoThe Law Lion.

The Law Lion is the only platform combining AI legal writing grounded in real case law with an expert human writing service — serving attorneys, paralegals, and everyday people nationwide.

info@thelawlion.com
Mon–Fri 9am–6pm EST · Rush available
Serving Clients Nationwide

AI Tool

  • → AI Legal Writing Tool
  • → AI Document Drafting
  • → Motion Drafting
  • → Contract Drafting
  • → Legal Research
  • → Case Law Search
  • → Citation Generator
  • → Document Review
  • → Contract Review
  • → For Lawyers

Writing Service

  • → Eviction Defense
  • → Court Documents
  • → Custody & Family
  • → Divorce Documents
  • → Debt & Collections
  • → All Writing Services

Top Guides

  • → Eviction Response Guide
  • → Best AI Legal Tools 2026
  • → Debt Validation Letter Guide

Company

  • → About The Law Lion
  • → Client Results
  • → Transparent Pricing
  • → Legal Guides & Blog
  • → Contact & Free Consult
  • → Affiliate Program

Top Services

  • → Eviction Notice Response
  • → Debt Validation Letter
  • → Court Summons Response
© 2026 The Law Lion LLC · AI Legal Writing & Expert Document Service
Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceSitemap