Stark County Bar Association v. Buttacavoli

152 Ohio St. 3d 53, 2017-Ohio-8857 (2017) · Supreme Court of Ohio · December 7, 2017 · No. 2017-0227

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio imposed a two-year suspension on Glen F. Buttacavoli for professional misconduct arising from false statements and nondisclosures during Medicaid applications, as well as failures to advise clients about potential fee refunds. Eighteen months of the suspension were stayed subject to conditions, including no further misconduct, payment of proceeding costs, and restitution to two former clients.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Maureen O'Connor, Chief Justice; Terrence O'Donnell, Justice; William M. O'Neill, Justice; Pat DeWine, Justice; Judith L. French, Justice; Mary DeGenaro, Justice; Patrick F. Fischer, Justice
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
December 7, 2017
Docket number
2017-0227
Procedural posture
Attorney-discipline proceeding on a certified report from the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Standard of review
The Supreme Court of Ohio independently reviewed the record and adopted the board's findings and recommended sanction.
Precedential value
Published Ohio Supreme Court attorney-discipline opinion; precedential
Parties
Stark County Bar Association v. Glen F. Buttacavoli
Disposition
other

Topics

health lawadministrative lawrestitutionremedies

Practice areas

legal ethicsattorney disciplineMedicaid eligibilityprofessional misconduct

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Buttacavoli violated the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct by making false statements and failing to disclose asset transfers during Medicaid applications.
  2. Whether Buttacavoli violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(d)(3) by charging fixed fees denominated as nonrefundable without advising clients about possible refunds.
  3. What sanction was appropriate in light of the misconduct, aggravating and mitigating factors, prior discipline, and comparable disciplinary decisions.

Holdings

  1. Buttacavoli violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) in both the Marchant and Daywalt matters by knowingly making false or misleading representations and failing to disclose prior asset transfers during the Medicaid application process.
  2. Buttacavoli violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(d)(3) three times by charging fixed fees denominated as nonrefundable without simultaneously advising the clients in writing that they might be entitled to a refund if he did not complete the representations.
  3. A two-year suspension from the practice of law, with 18 months stayed on conditions, was appropriate; the stay was conditioned on no further misconduct and payment of proceeding costs, and reinstatement was conditioned on restitution to Marchant and Daywalt.

Key quotations

Glen F. Buttacavoli is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years with 18 months stayed on the conditions that he engage in no further misconduct and pay the costs of these proceedings. (¶ 20)

Factual background

Buttacavoli represented elderly clients in connection with Medicaid eligibility and assisted two clients, Marquerite Marchant and Sally Daywalt, in transferring assets. When applying for Medicaid benefits, he failed to disclose prior transfers and made false statements concerning Marchant's and Daywalt's financial information. He also charged three clients fixed, nonrefundable fees without advising them in writing that they might be entitled to refunds if he did not complete the representation. Buttacavoli had a prior disciplinary offense and pleaded guilty to misdemeanor falsification arising from the Marchant matter.

Procedural history

The Stark County Bar Association charged Buttacavoli with professional misconduct arising from false statements made during Medicaid applications and failures to advise clients about possible refunds of fixed fees. Buttacavoli stipulated to some charges, and after a hearing the Board of Professional Conduct found misconduct and recommended a two-year suspension with 18 months conditionally stayed, restitution, and costs. Neither party objected, and the Supreme Court of Ohio adopted the board's findings and recommended sanction.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…