Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that Anthony James Fusco violated Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(h) by submitting falsely inflated medical bills in hundreds of client matters to increase his law-firm bonuses. The court imposed an indefinite suspension from the practice of law and denied credit for time served under his interim felony suspension.
Holdings
- Fusco violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(h) by engaging in criminal insurance fraud and conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law.
- An indefinite suspension from the practice of law is warranted for Fusco's fraudulent financial scheme.
- Fusco receives no credit for time served under his interim felony suspension.
Questions Presented
- What sanction is appropriate for Fusco's violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(h)?
- Whether Fusco should receive credit for time served under his interim felony suspension.
- What factors govern whether credit should be granted for time served under an interim felony suspension?
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (17)
- In re Fusco, 2022-Ohio-3300(followed)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 2013-Ohio-3998, ¶ 21(followed)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Nowicki, 2023-Ohio-3079, ¶ 35(followed)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Bereday, 2019-Ohio-1895, ¶ 11(followed)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Kraemer, 2010-Ohio-3300(distinguished)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Gittinger, 2010-Ohio-1830(distinguished)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. George, 2020-Ohio-2902(followed)
- Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. King, 2019-Ohio-4715(followed)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Muntean, 2010-Ohio-6133(distinguished)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Fitz, 2022-Ohio-3108(distinguished)
Showing top 10 of 17.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…