Phone: 859-219-9090
Fax: 859-219-9292
Email: E-mail Me
Bryan graduated from the Northern Kentucky University Chase School of Law, and joined Richardson Law Group as a civil litigation attorney in 2023.
Professional Experience
Senior Associate, Richardson Law Group, PPLC, Lexington, KY June 2026 to present.
Associate, Richardson Law Group, PPLC, Lexington, KY 2023 to May 2026.
Education
Northern Kentucky University Chase School of Law, Juris Doctor (2023)
University of Kentucky, Bachelor of Arts in English (2017)
Accomplishments, Honors, and Affiliations
Northern Kentucky University Law Review
Kentucky Bar Association
Bar Admissions
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Representative Matters
April 2026, Kentucky Court of Appeals, 2025-CA-0756-MR: Melissa Richardson, Joshua Leckrone, Sarah Laytham, and Bryan Bond, successfully defended the dismissal of all claims of a former physician who attempted to collaterally attack his numerous federal convictions arising out of his distribution of controlled substances. The Complaint alleged claims of negligence, identity theft, fraud, and defamation, among others, against over 80 pharmacies and their staff. The Defendants sought dismissal as the Plaintiff’s claims were time-barred by their respective statutes of limitation and because the Plaintiff’s claims were essentially a collateral attack on his prior convictions. The Perry County Circuit Court ultimately dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims as being barred by the statute of limitations but did not consider the collateral estoppel defense.
When the Plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, the Court of Appeals not only affirmed the trial court’s dismissal, but also addressed the collateral estoppel defense. In so doing, the Court of Appeals held that the Supreme Court of the United States was emphatically clear that Heck “…forecloses all tort claims that ‘necessarily imply’ a conviction’s ‘invalidity.’” James A. Chaney v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., et al., No. 2025-CA-0756-MR, at 20 (Ky. Ct. App. 2026), citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486 (1994). Beyond the Plaintiff’s improper invocation of the Discovery Rule, his claims relied on a framing of facts and issues that were already foreclosed by his federal convictions. The essential takeaway of the Court of Appeal’s decision is that collateral estoppel functions as a shield when a prior proceeding, be it civil or criminal, has already adjudicated issues necessarily at stake in the subsequent proceeding.
November 2025, Clark County, KY, 23-CI-00418: Brewer v. Legacy Greenscapes. Richardson Law Group attorneys, Melissa Richardson and Bryan Bond, secured summary judgment for two non-profit entities following an injury at a recreational park. In 2023, a man visiting the park with his family injured himself going down a hill on a piece of flattened cardboard. At the time of his injury, the park contained numerous signs that conspicuously disclaimed liability for injuries under Kentucky’s Recreational Use Statute, KRS 411.190. The statute limits liability against “owners” of land used by the public for recreational purposes, unless the owner is “willful” or “malicious” in causing injury. The Court of Appeals has held that “willful” or “malicious” means “an entire want of care,” or “great indifference,” and can only be shown through affirmative negligence, not passive negligence. In other words, the Recreational Use Statute bars liability for mere failures to act. The Plaintiff nonetheless filed suit, bringing claims of negligence against the non-profits.
Oral arguments for this case focused on a social media post made by one of the non-profits approximately two and half years before the accident occurred. The Plaintiff argued that the post appeared to endorse the use of cardboard to sled down the hill. The non-profits argued that this post was irrelevant, because it had no causal connection to the Plaintiff’s injury. Ultimately, the Court accepted the Defendants’ argument, and granted summary judgment for both non-profits. Although the Recreational Use Statute was essential to the Defendants’ arguments, the Plaintiff attempted to avoid an essential consideration in any negligence case: causation. However, the Court ruled that showing an affirmative act is not enough. That act must also be relevant in causing the Plaintiff’s injury before it can be deemed sufficient to show willfulness or malice against a property owner.
Spare Time
In his spare time, Bryan enjoys reading, writing, and listening to jazz.