Former Johnson County prosecutor Brad Cooper intends to practice law again, but whether he will be allowed to is in the hands of a Jackson County judge.
Last August, the Indiana Supreme Court suspended Cooper’s license to practice law in the state, two weeks after he was sentenced. He had pleaded guilty to felony charges of criminal confinement, identity deception and official misconduct, and a misdemeanor charge of domestic battery relating to a March incident at his Trafalgar home. He hasn’t practiced law since.
Cooper had been a licensed attorney in Indiana since 1993, and was Johnson County prosecutor for a decade, until he was removed from office as required by law due to the felony conviction.
The interim suspension was expected, as the Indiana Rules of Court say an attorney licensed in Indiana who is found guilty of a felony or misdemeanor must notify the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission and the court can suspend the attorney while considering further disciplinary action. The disciplinary commission is an arm of the state supreme court that is responsible for investigating and prosecuting claims of misconduct against lawyers.
David Griffith, with the disciplinary commission, Cooper and his attorneys, James Bell and Stephanie Grass, made the trek Friday to Brownstown for Cooper’s disciplinary hearing, about a year after he was convicted, and more than a year after he battered his then-fiancee in a drunken rage.
Seven Johnson County judges and attorneys—some of whom were subpoenaed—testified Friday on Cooper’s behalf, as the defense attempted to show the court Cooper is fit to practice law again.
Among those who testified were Johnson County Superior Court 2 Judge Peter Nugent, Franklin City Court Judge Mark Loyd, two deputy prosecutors who worked under Cooper, several local defense attorneys who said they had known and worked alongside Cooper a long time, a family friend who also happens to be a local attorney and Cooper’s father.
The defense asked the witnesses questions about Cooper’s work as a prosecutor, in which several said he was one of the finest trial lawyers they know. The witnesses answered questions about Cooper’s strengths, abilities and ethics as an attorney.
They were also asked about Cooper’s drinking problem, which Cooper himself talked about in detail during the hearing, outlining how and when he noticed it was an issue. Those who were asked said they never witnessed him drink at work, but did occasionally witness him over-drink at parties, some of which Cooper hosted at his house.
During the course of the hearing which included two hours of testimony, the defense walked the court through what led to Cooper’s alleged alcohol addiction, and eventually the March 2019 incident, referencing multiple traumatic events in a span of a few years, including the deaths of Cooper’s sister, mother, and chief administrative deputy, as well as his divorce.
“Sober Brad Cooper is a tremendous lawyer,” said Dan Vandivier, a Franklin attorney for nearly three decades. The comment prompted the defense to ask witnesses who took the stand after Vandivier whether “sober Brad Cooper” should be recommended to the profession.
Most said yes, including Megan Smither, a deputy prosecutor who worked under Cooper for years and learned a lot from him, she said.
But Smither also told the court she would not have testified if she had not been subpoenaed.
“I don’t wish Brad ill will, but no, if it was just up to me, I don’t know that I would be here,” Smither said. “I was subpoenaed to be here. I respect Brad … But if I was just choosing to come testify, I would not.”
Nugent said Cooper was a reasonable attorney to deal with, and was always respectful, even when he disagreed with the judge’s sentences.
“Brad Cooper is great. He’s fantastic. He is probably one of the best trial lawyers in the county. He is honest. He will disclose anything and everything, not because he has to but because he wants to,” Nugent said.
“He is just one of the most honorable attorneys I know.”
Loyd said he appreciated Cooper as a prosecutor. This is the second time Loyd has testified on behalf of Cooper at a disciplinary hearing, said Griffith, an attorney for the commission.
Griffith asked Loyd if it was disheartening to be testifying on Cooper’s behalf again.
“Uncomfortable,” Loyd said.
Loyd explained he is used to being on the other side of the bench, but that this is the second time he has had to testify on Cooper’s behalf.
“We are here again, a second time, completely different set of circumstances, or it seems to be … I’m not sure one connects with the other, but we are back,” Loyd said.
Loyd went on to say he had a close relationship with Cooper, and that they would go on friendly group outings together, where he had witnessed Cooper drink alcohol.
“I certainly would not categorize Cooper as a sloppy drunk,” Loyd told the court, but he did at times stand out more than others, Loyd said.
The defense asked Cooper to walk the court through his development of an alcohol dependency, and to explain the treatment—both court-ordered and self-sought—after the domestic battery incident last March.
Cooper underwent a detox about 10 days after the incident with the help of his father, a retired neurosurgeon who also testified on his son’s behalf. He sought medical and psychiatric treatment, and was ordered to complete anger management and domestic battery classes, which he has completed most of, he said Friday.
He is also in Alcoholics Anonymous, and recently received his token for being one year sober, he said.
Cooper was asked to walk the court through what happened the night of the domestic battery incident in which he dragged his then-fiancee out of her car, battered and confined her, until she managed to escape and run to a neighbors house where 9-1-1 was called.
“Call it what it was, I snapped … I didn’t want her to go,” Cooper said. “I used my strength over her strength and forced her back into the house.”
Cooper says what happened that night was sparked by his alcoholism and emotional and physical fatigue.
“I don’t say any of this to minimize what I did. What I did on March 4 (2019) was a horrible thing to do to someone, especially someone you love. And in retrospect, what I’ve learned from (the doctors) is alcohol was ruining my life,” Cooper said.
He told the court in an effort to make sure those things never happen again, he avoids alcohol and triggers, such as circles and gatherings where alcohol is served.
When asked why he pleaded guilty, Cooper said, “Because I did it, because I was owning it. In my mind, it was the right thing to do.
“As a prosecutor, a lot of what I wanted out of defendants when we had the evidence was for them to come in and own it and do their best to rectify the situation afterwards, and I kind of applied that same philosophy to myself.”
Jackson County Superior Court 1 Judge AmyMarie Travis, who is presiding over the case, asked Cooper why he alleged in the media immediately following the incident that it did not happen the way it was initially reported, defending himself, she said.
“As a prosecutor previous to being a judge, we struggled with getting juries and the community to accept that domestic violence happens. One of the things that was frustrating as a prosecutor, frequently, was the ‘she’s crazy’ defense,” Travis said. “To me, you did the ‘she’s crazy’ defense.
“Talk to me about your thought process behind that, where you were at the time. I want to understand that situation a little bit better,” she said.
“It was pure self-interest,” Cooper said. “It was myself trying to project blame about what I had done. I was still angry and probably still drunk.”
Cooper was asked to tell the judge what he misses about the being a lawyer. Cooper said he misses his former staff, the “sheer fun” of being a trial lawyer and the ability to make a difference.
Griffith, with the disciplinary commission, made a point to say repeatedly this isn’t the first time Cooper has been reprimanded or faced disciplinary actions. He also said Cooper has used similar arguments, such as family trauma, to justify his actions in the past.
Cooper was reported to the disciplinary commission at least twice, and publicly reprimanded once.
In 2017, he was reprimanded by the Indiana Supreme Court for making misleading and inflammatory comments about a judge. The public reprimand was a rare step for the court to take against a sitting prosecutor.
The justices found that he committed professional misconduct when, in 2014, he made comments to the media regarding a northern Indiana judge who decided that convicted murderer Michael Dean Overstreet was not competent to be executed for the death of Kelly Eckart. Under the state’s professional rules of conduct for attorneys, “a lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge.”
Cooper’s comment that drew the reprimand was made when the judge ruled that Overstreet would no longer face the death penalty. Cooper had said he was angry and suspicious when the case was sent to a distant judge who was not accountable to local residents, and that the idea that “this convicted murdering monster is too sick to be executed is nothing short of outrageous and is an injustice to the victim, her mother, the jury and the hundreds of people who worked to convict this animal.”
In 2011, he was the subject of a complaint and report sent to the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, although no action was taken against him. He had been found drinking in a vehicle being driven by a suspended Franklin police officer, and both men were outside the home of a sheriff’s deputy, looking for a woman that Cooper wanted a relationship with, according to a police report taken at the time.
In this case, both the commission and defense will make final arguments in written briefs which will be due to the court two weeks after both parties receive a transcript of Friday’s hearing. Travis said that could take up to 30 days. She is expected to make a decision then.
