Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio suspended attorney John Joseph Scaccia for one year, with six months stayed, based on neglect of an employment-related litigation matter, failures to maintain client-fund records and a trust account, and improper fee practices. The court conditioned the stay and reinstatement on continuing legal education, monitored probation, no further misconduct, and restitution to affected clients.
Holdings
- Clear and convincing evidence established that Scaccia neglected the Mound clients' legal matter and failed to maintain complete records of their funds and related trust-account records, violating the cited disciplinary rules.
- Scaccia violated the professional-conduct rules by charging a nonrefundable fee and by depositing Grider's advance fee and expense payment into his operating account rather than a client trust account.
- Scaccia violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) and (c) by depositing Willis's $2,500 advance fee into his operating account rather than a client trust account.
- The appropriate sanction was a one-year suspension from the practice of law, with six months stayed on conditions, including continuing legal education, monitored probation upon reinstatement, and no further misconduct.
- The court had authority to order restitution and required Scaccia to make full restitution to each affected Mound client and provide a complete client list and accounting within 90 days.
Questions Presented
- Whether clear and convincing evidence established that Scaccia neglected the Mound clients' legal matter.
- Whether Scaccia violated professional-conduct rules by failing to maintain complete records of client funds and trust-account records.
- Whether Scaccia violated professional-conduct rules by charging a nonrefundable fee and depositing advance fees and expenses into an operating account rather than a client trust account.
- Whether the evidence established additional alleged violations involving intentional failure to perform duties, commingling, diligence, excessive fees, and accounting.
- What sanction was appropriate in light of the misconduct and aggravating and mitigating factors.
- Whether restitution should be ordered despite the board's failure to recommend it.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (5)
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St. 3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16(followed)
- Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rucker, 134 Ohio St. 3d 282, 2012-Ohio-5642, 981 N.E.2d 866(distinguished)
- Toledo Bar Assn. v. Royer, 133 Ohio St. 3d 545, 2012-Ohio-5147, 979 N.E.2d 329(distinguished)
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Heitzler, 32 Ohio St. 2d 214, 220, 291 N.E.2d 477 (1972)(followed)
- Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Reid, 85 Ohio St. 3d 327, 708 N.E.2d 193 (1999)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…