Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Bucciere

Citation: 2009-Ohio-1156

Docket Number: 20082426

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2009-03-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Bucciere, 121 Ohio St.3d 274, 2009-Ohio-1156.] 
 
 
 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. BUCCIERE. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Bucciere,  
121 Ohio St.3d 274, 2009-Ohio-1156.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Practicing law while registered as an attorney on 
inactive status — Public reprimand. 
(No. 2008-2426 — Submitted January 14, 2009 — Decided March 19, 2009.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 08-044. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Robert Louis Kent Bucciere of Cincinnati, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0067776, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
1997.  The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has 
recommended that we publicly reprimand respondent for violating Gov.Bar R. 
VI(2)(A) (prohibiting a lawyer from practicing law while registered as an attorney 
on inactive status) and Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from practicing 
law in violation of the regulations for practicing law in that jurisdiction).  We 
agree that respondent violated these ethical standards and that a public reprimand 
is appropriate. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, charged respondent with 
professional misconduct in a single-count complaint.  A panel appointed by the 
board considered the case upon the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement, filed 
pursuant to Section 11 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  The panel accepted the agreement, found 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
respondent in violation of the cited rules, and recommended the public reprimand.  
The board adopted the panel’s findings of misconduct and recommendation. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} Respondent admitted and we find that he violated Gov.Bar R. 
VI(2)(A) and Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a) by representing clients in one case while he was 
not registered to practice law on active status. 
{¶ 4} On December 29, 2005, respondent changed his attorney-
registration status from active to inactive for the remainder of the 2005-2007 
biennium.  From January 2007 through December 2007, however, respondent 
represented two clients in an appeal and, after obtaining a reversal and remand in 
their favor, in proceedings before a common pleas court.  Throughout this time, 
respondent mistakenly believed that his assistant had arranged to register him for 
active status. 
{¶ 5} While representing the clients in common pleas court, respondent 
attended a deposition and also agreed to participate in mediation to resolve the 
dispute.  Prior to the mediation proceedings, which were scheduled for mid-
December 2007, however, opposing counsel moved for respondent’s removal, 
citing his inactive registration status.  Respondent registered for active status with 
this court’s Attorney Registration Section on December 4, 2007, and has 
conceded his responsibility for failing to do so before that date, yet practicing law. 
Sanction 
{¶ 6} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel and 
board weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors of respondent’s case.  See 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  According to the consent-to-discipline agreement, no 
aggravating factors are present.  Mitigating factors include that respondent has no 
prior disciplinary record and no dishonest or selfish motive was involved, that he 
has made a timely good-faith effort to rectify the consequences of his misconduct, 
January Term, 2009 
3 
and that he has cooperated in the disciplinary proceedings.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a), (b), (c), and (d). 
{¶ 7} The parties have stipulated to a public reprimand, and the panel 
and board have recommended that respondent be publicly reprimanded for his 
misconduct.  We accept this recommendation.  Respondent is hereby reprimanded 
for his violations of Gov.Bar R. VI(2) and Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a). 
{¶ 8} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Crowley, Ahlers & Roth Co., L.P.A., and James C. Crowley IV, for 
relator. 
Christensen, Christensen, Donchatz, Kettlewell & Owens, L.L.P., and 
Charles J. Kettlewell, for respondent. 
______________________