Preview:

04/25/2011 "See News Release 023 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 11-B-0254 IN RE: WILLIAM ELDREN BRADLEY

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM*
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against respondent, William E. Bradley, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana but currently on interim suspension based upon his conviction of a serious crime. In re: Bradley, 09-0583 (La. 4/1/09), 6 So. 3d 745.

UNDERLYING FACTS In 2009, respondent pled guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to one count of conspiracy to bribe a state official in connection with a program receiving federal funds, namely the state's film incentive program. In the factual basis accompanying the guilty plea, respondent admitted that he represented a client, Malcolm Petal, whose film production company was seeking Louisiana film tax credits. Mr. Petal paid respondent $135,000, of which respondent paid $67,500 to Mark Smith, the director of the Louisiana Film Commission. Mr. Smith then certified approximately $1,350,000 in tax credits for Mr. Petal's company.1 Respondent was subsequently sentenced to serve ten months in federal prison.2

*

Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.

Mr. Smith and Mr. Petal were also Louisiana-licensed attorneys. Both men were permanently disbarred following their guilty pleas in connection with their role in the conspiracy; in addition, Mr. Petal was also found to have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law during his interim suspension. See In re: Smith, 09-2523 (La. 3/12/10), 29 So. 3d 484; In re: Petal, 10-0080 (La. 3/26/10), 30 So. 3d 728.
2

1

Respondent was scheduled to be released from prison in June 2010.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS In January 2010, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging that his conduct as set forth above violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct), 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer), 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 8.4(e) (stating or implying an ability to influence improperly a judge, judicial officer, governmental agency, or official). Respondent failed to answer the formal charges. Accordingly, the factual allegations contained therein were deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX,

Download 2011-B-0254 IN RE: WILLIAM ELDREN BRADLEY.pdf

Louisiana Law