Disciplinary Counsel v. Scacchetti
| Decision Date | 26 January 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 2011–1409.,2011–1409. |
| Parties | DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SCACCHETTI. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.PER CURIAM.
[Ohio St.3d 165] {¶ 1} Respondent, David John Scacchetti of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0014117, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1982. In June 2007, we suspended Scacchetti for two years, with the final 18 months stayed on conditions based upon his cocaine use and related criminal charges. Disciplinary Counsel v. Scacchetti, 114 Ohio St.3d 36, 2007-Ohio-2713, 867 N.E.2d 830. We reinstated Scacchetti to the practice of law and placed him on probation on March 20, 2008. Disciplinary Counsel v. Scacchetti, 117 Ohio St.3d 1216, 2008-Ohio-1489, 883 N.E.2d 1073.1 And on November 1, 2011, we suspended his license for failure to comply with the registration requirements of Gov.Bar R. VI for the 2011–2013 biennium. In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Scacchetti, 130 Ohio St.3d 1423, 2011-Ohio-5627, 956 N.E.2d 310.
{¶ 2} On April 11, 2011, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint charging Scacchetti with violations of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, alleging that he had commingled personal and client funds, used his client trust account as a personal account or law-office operating account, neglected a client matter, and failed to respond in the ensuing disciplinary investigations. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline attempted to serve Scacchetti with a copy of the complaint by certified mail at the address he had registered with the Office of Attorney Registration, but the letter was returned unclaimed. On May 9, 2011, the clerk of the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted service on Scacchetti's behalf in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B), and relator moved for default judgment pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F) on June 23, 2011.
[Ohio St.3d 166] {¶ 3} The board referred the motion to a master commissioner, who found that the materials relator offered in support of his default motion were sufficient and that relator had proven each of the alleged violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct by clear and convincing evidence. The master commissioner, however, rejected relator's recommended two-year suspension from the practice of law in favor of an indefinite suspension. The board adopted the master commissioner's findings of fact and misconduct and his recommended sanction.
Misconduct
{¶ 4} The essence of the board's findings is as follows. With regard to count one, relator received notice from Scacchetti's bank that he had overdrawn his client trust account on five separate occasions. In response to those notices, relator sent letters of inquiry seeking Scacchetti's explanation of the overdrafts. Although Scacchetti submitted a partial response to one letter, spoke with assistant disciplinary counsel by telephone, and requested and received an extension of time to provide additional information, he did not provide any additional information or respond to relator's subsequent correspondence. Scacchetti was subpoenaed to attend two depositions, but failed to appear.
{¶ 5} The board also found that from May 2009 through November 2010, Scacchetti commingled personal and client funds in his client trust account, used that account as if it were a personal account or law-office operating account, and caused the account to be overdrawn on five separate occasions.
{¶ 6} With respect to count two, the board found that respondent represented Mariscal Protasio Cortez on a felony-theft matter before the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. Cortez entered a guilty plea to a first-degree-misdemeanor theft charge and, as part of the plea agreement, provided Scacchetti with $100 to pay restitution to the victim of the offense. Although Scacchetti informed the presiding judge that he would make the payment and provide the court with a copy of the receipt, he failed to do so. And, as in count one, Scacchetti failed to respond to relator's letters of inquiry.
{¶ 7} Based upon its factual findings, the board found that respondent's conduct with respect to count one violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (), 8.1(b) (), 8.4(d) (), and 8.4(h) () and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation).
[Ohio St.3d 167] {¶ 8} With respect to count two, the board found that respondent's conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (), 1.15(d) (), 8.1(b), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h) and Gov.Bar R. (V)(4)(G).
Sanction
{¶ 9} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16. In making a final determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.
{¶ 10} The board found that there are no mitigating factors present but that Scacchetti's prior disciplinary record, his pattern of misconduct, and his failure to cooperate in the disciplinary process are aggravating factors in this case. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (c), and (e). The board also found that on April 15, 2011, respondent pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of possession of drug paraphernalia and was sentenced to two years of community control, conditioned upon his submission to random urine testing and participation in outpatient treatment.
{¶ 11} Relator recommended that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Disciplinary Counsel v. Rammelsberg
... ... Bogdanski, 135 Ohio St.3d 235, 2013-Ohio-398, 985 N.E.2d 1251 ; Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Lemieux, 139 Ohio St.3d 320, 2014-Ohio-2127, 11 N.E.3d 1157 ; Disciplinary Counsel v. Weiss, 133 Ohio St.3d 236, 2012-Ohio-4564, 977 N.E.2d 636 ; and Disciplinary Counsel v. Scacchetti, 131 Ohio St.3d 165, 2012-Ohio-223, 962 N.E.2d 786.{ 15} The board also noted that we have indefinitely suspended attorneys who engaged in misconduct comparable to Rammelsberg's misconduct. E.g., Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Wrentmore, 138 Ohio St.3d 16, 2013-Ohio-5041, 3 N.E.3d 149 (imposing an ... ...
-
Mahoning Cnty. Bar Ass'n v. Dimartino
... ... 17, 2016.49 N.E.3d 1281 David Comstock Jr., Cleveland, and Ronald E. Slipski, Bar Counsel, for relator.Mark Anthony Hanni, for respondent.PER CURIAM.145 Ohio St.3d 391 { 1} Respondent, ... Bar Association, has charged DiMartino with misconduct similar to that in his previous disciplinary cases, including client neglect, failing to account for settlement funds, and dishonesty. Based on ... Braun, 133 Ohio St.3d 541, 2012-Ohio-5136, 979 N.E.2d 326, and Disciplinary Counsel v. Scacchetti, 131 Ohio St.3d 165, 2012-Ohio-223, 962 N.E.2d 786. In Braun, the attorney neglected a client ... ...
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Scacchetti, 2011-1409.