Disciplinary Counsel v. Scacchetti

114 Ohio St. 3d 36 (2007) · Supreme Court of Ohio · June 20, 2007

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court held that David J. Scacchetti violated DR 1-102(A)(3) by engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude and DR 1-102(A)(6) by engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law. The court imposed a two-year suspension, stayed 18 months subject to recovery, testing, meeting, court-compliance, and probation conditions, with the stay to be lifted upon noncompliance.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Moyer, C.J.; Pfeifer; Lundberg Stratton; O'Connor; O'Donnell; Lanzinger; Cupp
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
June 20, 2007
Procedural posture
Attorney-discipline proceeding in which the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommended a two-year suspension, with the final 18 months stayed on conditions, after stipulated findings that respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Standard of review
The Supreme Court of Ohio independently reviewed the stipulated findings of misconduct and the recommended sanction.
Precedential value
Published opinion of the Supreme Court of Ohio; precedential authority on the violations and disciplinary sanction imposed.
Parties
Disciplinary Counsel v. David J. Scacchetti
Disposition
other

Topics

remedies

Practice areas

legal ethics and professional responsibilityattorney disciplinesubstance abuse and lawyer fitness

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Scacchetti violated DR 1-102(A)(3) by engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude.
  2. Whether Scacchetti violated DR 1-102(A)(6) by engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law.
  3. What sanction was appropriate in light of the misconduct, relapse, mitigating factors, and evidence concerning his readiness to resume practice.

Holdings

  1. Scacchetti violated DR 1-102(A)(3) by engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude through his cocaine possession.
  2. Scacchetti violated DR 1-102(A)(6) by engaging in conduct that adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law.
  3. A two-year suspension from the practice of law was appropriate, with 18 months stayed on conditions; the remaining six months constituted an actual suspension.

Key quotations

We therefore suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for two years; however, we stay 18 months of this sanction on the conditions that during the entire two-year sanction, respondent (1) continue to participate in OLAP and remain drug-free and alcohol-free, (2) submit to random drug and alcohol testing either through the common pleas court or OLAP, (3) attend an Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meeting at least once a week, and (4) continue to comply with all court orders in the underlying criminal case. (¶ 19)

Factual background

Scacchetti, an Ohio attorney, developed chronic pain and depression associated with a staph infection and a neck injury and began using cocaine to self-medicate. He was indicted for felony cocaine possession, pleaded guilty, and received treatment in lieu of conviction, including inpatient treatment, rehabilitation, and inactive attorney-registration status. Although he completed intensive treatment and entered a recovery contract, he relapsed and tested positive for cocaine, leading to additional court-ordered treatment and incarceration.

Procedural history

Disciplinary Counsel and Scacchetti stipulated to the facts and alleged misconduct. A three-member board panel heard testimony, made findings and conclusions, and recommended a two-year suspension with 18 months conditionally stayed; the board adopted that recommendation. The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the matter and imposed the recommended sanction with specified conditions.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…