Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Ferfolia

Citation: 2022-Ohio-4220

Docket Number: 2022-0715

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2022-11-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Ferfolia, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4220.] 
 
                                                                
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2022-OHIO-4220 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. FERFOLIA. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Ferfolia, Slip Opinion No.  
2022-Ohio-4220.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—
Conditionally stayed one-year suspension. 
(No. 2022-0715—Submitted August 2, 2022—Decided November 30, 2022.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2021-028. 
______________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Donald Bryan Ferfolia Jr., of Brecksville, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0082049, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
2007.  In an October 2021 complaint, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Ferfolia 
with five ethical violations arising from his representation of a husband and wife 
seeking long-term-care Medicaid benefits for the husband.  The complaint alleged 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
that, among other things, Ferfolia failed to timely take actions necessary to obtain 
the desired Medicaid benefits, failed to comply with his clients’ reasonable requests 
for information, falsely led them to believe that he had filed a claim on their behalf 
with his professional-liability-insurance carrier, and failed to cooperate in the 
ensuing disciplinary investigation. 
{¶ 2} The parties entered into stipulations of fact, misconduct, and 
aggravating and mitigating factors.  At a hearing conducted by a three-member 
panel of the Board of Professional Conduct, the parties recommended that we 
impose a conditionally stayed one-year suspension for Ferfolia’s misconduct.  The 
board issued a report finding that Ferfolia committed the charged misconduct.  It 
also adopted the parties’ stipulated aggravating and mitigating factors and their 
recommended sanction—with additional conditions on the stay.  No objections 
have been filed. 
{¶ 3} After thoroughly reviewing the record, we adopt the board’s findings 
of misconduct and its recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
The Schnurr Medicaid Application 
{¶ 4} In January 2019, Charles Schnurr resided in a Cleveland-area nursing 
home; his wife, Rita, lived in a Cleveland suburb with their adult daughter, Janice.  
Around that time, Rita learned that Charles had nearly exhausted his insurance 
coverage and that they would need to apply for long-term-care Medicaid to cover 
Charles’s ongoing nursing-home expenses. 
{¶ 5} Ferfolia was a licensed funeral director and vice-president of the 
board of the Ferfolia Funeral Home in Sagamore Hills, Ohio.  He also practiced 
law part-time.  Rita and Charles Schnurr knew Ferfolia through their church and 
the funeral home.  Based on their understanding that Ferfolia was an “elder law” 
attorney, the Schnurrs hired him to apply for Medicaid benefits on Charles’s behalf.  
They did not sign a fee agreement, and Ferfolia did not charge them any fee. 
January Term, 2022 
 
3 
{¶ 6} In March 2019, Ferfolia submitted an application for long-term-care 
Medicaid to the Ohio Department of Job & Family Services (“ODJFS”), 
designating himself as Charles’s authorized representative.  The agency denied that 
application in September 2019 on the ground that Ferfolia had failed to timely 
provide information regarding Charles’s income.  Ferfolia appealed, and a hearing 
officer reopened the application upon finding that the information had been 
provided but that the ODJFS web portal had directed the documents to the wrong 
county. 
{¶ 7} The parties stipulated that in 2019, an applicant had to have a monthly 
income of $2,313 or less to qualify for long-term-care Medicaid.  At the time of his 
application, Charles’s monthly income was $3,263.  In an October 2019 email, 
Ferfolia informed the nursing home that Charles’s income was about $3,000 and 
erroneously stated that that income was “under the [Medicaid] income threshold.” 
{¶ 8} On December 10, 2019, ODJFS informed Ferfolia that he needed to 
submit additional documents in support of Charles’s Medicaid application no later 
than December 23.  That correspondence further stated, “If your gross income for 
2019 is more than $2313 you may be required to open a Qualified Income Trust.”  
Ferfolia did not submit the requested documents to ODJFS before the deadline or 
take any other action to confirm Charles’s Medicaid eligibility, nor did he take any 
steps to open a qualified-income trust on Charles’s behalf.  Over the following 
months, Ferfolia failed to respond to numerous communications from Rita, Janice, 
and Megan Marzola, the nursing home’s Medicaid manager, inquiring about the 
status of Charles’s Medicaid application. 
{¶ 9} In early February 2020, Rita and Janice informed Marzola that they 
had not heard from Ferfolia and that they needed to submit requested bank 
statements to ODJFS.  Marzola retrieved the documents from Rita and Janice and 
submitted them to ODJFS.  Later that month, an ODJFS representative informed 
Marzola that Ferfolia had failed to establish the qualified-income trust that was 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4 
necessary to establish Charles’s eligibility for long-term-care Medicaid.  On 
February 12, nursing-home representatives helped the Schnurrs establish a 
qualified-income trust for Charles.  One week later, ODJFS approved Charles’s 
Medicaid application with an effective date of February 1, 2020, rather than the 
March 22, 2019 application date. 
{¶ 10} The parties stipulated that as a result of Ferfolia’s failure to 
recognize the need for and to timely establish a qualified-income trust for Charles, 
the Schnurrs had incurred over $87,000 in nursing-home expenses that otherwise 
would have been covered by Medicaid.  After Charles died in January 2021, Rita 
and Janice used his life-insurance proceeds and government-stimulus funds to pay 
those expenses in full.  Although Rita asked Ferfolia to return the paperwork she 
had given him during the course of his representation, he waited nearly two years 
to return those documents to her. 
The Schnurr Legal-Malpractice Claim 
{¶ 11} In May 2020, Rita and Charles Schnurr hired attorney Drew 
Barnholtz to pursue a legal-malpractice action against Ferfolia.  Ferfolia told 
Barnholtz that he had professional-liability insurance, but he did not give Barnholtz 
the name of his carrier. 
{¶ 12} In September 2020, Barnholtz sent Ferfolia an email stating that 
Ferfolia had failed to respond to numerous voicemail messages and emails from 
Barnholtz over the previous several weeks requesting information about the status 
and resolution of Ferfolia’s insurance claim.  Although Ferfolia had not filed a 
claim with his professional-liability carrier, he falsely implied in his reply to 
Barnholtz that he had submitted a claim. 
{¶ 13} A week later, Marzola emailed Barnholtz, copying Ferfolia, to ask 
whether Ferfolia had received Barnholtz’s request that he follow up with his 
insurance carrier.  Ferfolia replied to Marzola and Barnholtz and once again falsely 
implied that he had filed an insurance claim. 
January Term, 2022 
 
5 
{¶ 14} In December 2020, Barnholtz filed a legal-malpractice action against 
Ferfolia in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas.  The complaint alleged 
that Ferfolia’s failure to timely establish a qualified-income trust had delayed the 
approval of Charles’s Medicaid application and caused the Schnurrs to incur over 
$87,000 in unreimbursed nursing-home expenses.  Although the complaint was 
served on Ferfolia by certified mail, he did not file a timely answer or other 
responsive pleading.  The court granted Barnholtz’s motion for default judgment 
and, in June 2021, awarded the Schnurrs $87,000 in damages plus $21,750 in 
attorney fees.  Ferfolia failed to appear for a scheduled debtor’s examination in 
October 2021 but participated in a December 2021 examination to avoid being 
found in contempt of court.  Following that examination, Ferfolia informed 
Barnholtz of his financial means and plans to satisfy the judgment.  At his 
disciplinary hearing, Ferfolia testified that he had made three payments totaling 
$13,750 but that he still owed the Schnurrs $95,000.  He stated that he had $6,000 
available and that he was in the process of liquidating an individual retirement 
account valued at more than $100,000 to satisfy the judgment. 
Relator’s Investigation of the Schnurrs’ Grievance 
{¶ 15} In October 2020, the Schnurrs filed a grievance against Ferfolia with 
relator.  Ferfolia failed to respond to relator’s first two letters of inquiry regarding 
the grievance.  Consequently, relator’s investigator hand-delivered a third letter of 
inquiry requiring him to respond by May 3, 2021, or to appear at a May 20 
deposition.  During a May 6 telephone conversation with relator, Ferfolia claimed 
that he had emailed his partial response to the grievance earlier that week.  When 
relator informed Ferfolia that it had not received such an email, Ferfolia assured 
relator that he would resend it immediately, but he failed to do so. 
{¶ 16} Ferfolia appeared for his May 20 deposition by videoconference.  He 
once again claimed to have emailed relator a Microsoft Word document containing 
his partial response to the grievance shortly before May 6.  Immediately following 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6 
the deposition, relator emailed Ferfolia to request a copy of his professional-
liability-insurance policy and other documents.  On the day his response was due, 
Ferfolia sent relator an email stating that he was working on his response and that 
he would provide it “shortly.”  About a week later, he sent another email, stating 
that he would provide the requested information “ASAP.”  But he never provided 
the requested information. 
Rule Violations 
{¶ 17} The parties stipulated and the board found that Ferfolia’s conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in 
representing a client), 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply as soon as practicable 
with reasonable requests for information from a client), 1.16(d) (requiring a lawyer 
to promptly deliver client papers and property as part of the termination of 
representation), 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from failing to disclose a material fact 
or knowingly failing to respond to a demand for information by a disciplinary 
authority during an investigation), and 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging 
in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).  We adopt 
these findings of misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 18} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 19} The parties stipulated and the board found that three aggravating 
factors are present—Ferfolia had a dishonest or selfish motive, committed multiple 
offenses, and caused harm to Rita and Janice, who were vulnerable because they 
were disabled and lived on a fixed monthly income.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(2), 
(4), and (8). 
January Term, 2022 
 
7 
{¶ 20} As for mitigating factors, the parties stipulated and the board found 
that Ferfolia has no prior discipline and had exhibited full and free disclosure to the 
board and a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings (after initially 
failing to cooperate) and submitted evidence of his good character and reputation.  
See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (4), and (5). 
{¶ 21} At his disciplinary hearing, Ferfolia testified that his mother had 
been sick around the time that he neglected the Schnurrs’ legal matter and that she 
had been hospitalized for 90 days before her death on February 15, 2020.  He 
explained that when the COVID-19 lockdown occurred just one month later, he 
“put [his] head in the sand.”  The board found that Ferfolia was very remorseful 
about his misconduct, and it noted that when asked what assurance he could give 
that he would not repeat his misconduct, he testified that the disciplinary process 
had served as a “wake-up call” and that he never wanted to be in this position again.  
Although relator had suggested that Ferfolia seek an evaluation conducted by the 
Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”), he declined to do so, opting instead 
to pursue counseling through his church. 
{¶ 22} The parties suggested that the appropriate sanction for Ferfolia’s 
misconduct is a one-year suspension, stayed in its entirety on the condition that he 
make restitution equal to the remaining balance of the judgment awarded in the 
Schnurrs’ malpractice case within 30 days of this court’s final disciplinary order. 
{¶ 23} In determining the appropriate sanction, the board considered our 
precedent, including four cases cited by relator.  In three of those cases, we imposed 
conditionally stayed one-year suspensions on attorneys who, like Ferfolia, had 
neglected a single client matter, failed to reasonably communicate with a client, 
and either lied to a client in an effort to conceal their neglect or failed to fully 
cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary proceedings—or both.  See, e.g., Cleveland 
Metro. Bar Assn. v. Mariotti, 158 Ohio St.3d 522, 2019-Ohio-5191, 145 N.E.3d 
286; Disciplinary Counsel v. Fumich, 116 Ohio St.3d 257, 2007-Ohio-6040, 878 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8 
N.E.2d 6; Disciplinary Counsel v. Farris, 157 Ohio St.3d 527, 2019-Ohio-4810, 
138 N.E.3d 1134. 
{¶ 24} In the fourth case, Dayton Bar Assn. v. Sullivan, 158 Ohio St.3d 423, 
2020-Ohio-124, 144 N.E.3d 401, we imposed a two-year suspension, with the 
second year conditionally stayed, on an attorney who had neglected three client 
matters, lied to those clients about filing documents in their cases in an attempt to 
conceal his inaction, failed to inform them that he did not carry professional-
liability insurance, and failed to cooperate in the disciplinary investigations.  Like 
Ferfolia, Sullivan acted with a dishonest or selfish motive and engaged in multiple 
offenses.  In addition, Sullivan failed to refund unearned or unused legal and filing 
fees and failed to cooperate in the relator’s investigation until after the relator filed 
its complaint against him.  But Sullivan had no prior discipline, and three close 
family members of his had died within several months of one another around the 
time of his misconduct.  Conditions of the partially stayed suspension in Sullivan 
included requirements that he pay restitution, submit to an OLAP assessment, 
comply with any resulting recommendations, and refrain from further misconduct. 
{¶ 25} The board also considered Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Burgess, 165 
Ohio St.3d 274, 2021-Ohio-2187, 178 N.E.3d 476.  Burgess failed to seek 
temporary support orders on behalf of a domestic-relations client, failed to appear 
for a scheduled status conference and trial in that matter, and falsely represented 
that he had delivered the client’s file to his new counsel.  He also failed to complete 
the agreed work in the limited-scope representation of another client, to comply 
with that client’s reasonable requests for information, and to withdraw from the 
representation as required by local rule.  In the presence of aggravating and 
mitigating factors similar to those present here—and on Burgess’s suggestion that 
he had been overwhelmed by his solo practice and personal issues—we imposed a 
one-year suspension for Burgess’s misconduct but stayed the entire suspension on 
January Term, 2022 
 
9 
conditions, including that he submit to an OLAP evaluation, comply with any 
resulting treatment recommendations, and refrain from further misconduct. 
{¶ 26} Based on the facts of this case and on the authority of Mariotti, 
Fumich, Farris, Sullivan, and Burgess, the board agreed with the parties’ 
recommendation that Ferfolia be suspended from the practice of law for one year 
and that the entire suspension be conditionally stayed.  But in addition to the parties’ 
stipulation that Ferfolia make restitution to the Schnurrs, the board recommends 
that Ferfolia be required to refrain from further misconduct and that like Sullivan 
and Burgess, he be required to submit to an OLAP evaluation and enter into an 
OLAP contract if OLAP determines that treatment is necessary.  Furthermore, the 
board specified that the OLAP evaluation should occur within 30 days of this 
court’s order. 
{¶ 27} This court has held that generally, attorney misconduct “involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation warrants an actual suspension from 
the practice of law.”  Disciplinary Counsel v. Karris, 129 Ohio St.3d 499, 2011-
Ohio-4243, 954 N.E.2d 118, ¶ 16, citing Disciplinary Counsel v. Kraemer, 126 
Ohio St.3d 163, 2010-Ohio-3300, 931 N.E.2d 571, ¶ 13, and Disciplinary Counsel 
v. Fowerbaugh, 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 658 N.E.2d 237 (1995), syllabus.  However, we 
have stated that an exception to this rule may be justified when “an abundance of 
mitigating evidence” is shown.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Markijohn, 99 Ohio St.3d 
489, 2003-Ohio-4129, 794 N.E.2d 24, ¶ 8, citing Dayton Bar Assn. v. Kinney, 89 
Ohio St.3d 77, 728 N.E.2d 1052 (2000).  We find that the relevant mitigating 
factors—namely, Ferfolia’s clean disciplinary record, his eventual full and free 
disclosure and cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, his positive 
character evidence, and his genuine remorse—warrant such an exception here. 
{¶ 28} After independently reviewing the record and considering the 
totality of Ferfolia’s misconduct, the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
10 
and our precedent, we believe that a one-year suspension, stayed in its entirety on 
the conditions recommended by the board, is the appropriate sanction in this case. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 29} Accordingly, Donald Bryan Ferfolia Jr. is suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio for one year with the suspension stayed in its entirety on the 
conditions that he commit no further misconduct and that within 30 days, he pay 
the balance of the judgment entered against him in Schnurr v. Ferfolia, Summit 
C.P. No. CV-2020-12-3358, and submit to an OLAP evaluation.  If Ferfolia violates 
any condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted and he will serve the entire one-
year suspension.  If OLAP determines that treatment is necessary, the stay shall 
also be conditioned on Ferfolia’s entering into an OLAP contract for a duration to 
be determined by OLAP and his complying with all treatment recommendations.  
Costs are taxed to Ferfolia. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and FISCHER, DONNELLY, STEWART, and BRUNNER, JJ., 
concur. 
DEWINE, J., concurs in judgment only. 
KENNEDY, J., dissents, with an opinion. 
_________________ 
KENNEDY, J., dissenting. 
 
{¶ 30} This court in a series of cases established a presumption of actual 
suspension from the practice of law when attorney misconduct “involv[es] 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”  Disciplinary Counsel v. Karris, 
129 Ohio St.3d 499, 2011-Ohio-4243, 954 N.E.2d 118, ¶ 16, citing Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Kraemer, 126 Ohio St.3d 163, 2010-Ohio-3300, 931 N.E.2d 571, ¶ 13, 
and Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh, 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 658 N.E.2d 237 
(1995), syllabus.  The presumptive sanction of an actual suspension from the 
practice of law can be rebutted when there is “an abundance of mitigating 
January Term, 2022 
 
11 
evidence.”  Disciplinary Counsel v. Markijohn, 99 Ohio St.3d 489, 2003-Ohio-
4129, 794 N.E.2d 24, ¶ 8, citing Dayton Bar Assn. v. Kinney, 89 Ohio St.3d 77, 728 
N.E.2d 1052 (2000). 
{¶ 31} I agree that respondent, Donald Bryan Ferfolia, committed the 
misconduct as alleged in the complaint and found by the majority.  But in my view, 
there is not an abundance of mitigating evidence that outweighs the misconduct of 
Ferfolia—misleading vulnerable victims who suffered actual financial harm and 
deceit about filing a claim with his professional-liability-insurance carrier.  
Therefore, I would impose an actual suspension from the practice of law for one 
year with six months stayed on the conditions that he commit no further misconduct 
and that within 30 days, he pay the balance of the judgment entered against him in 
Schnurr v. Ferfolia, Summit C.P. No. CV-2020-12-3358, and submit to an Ohio 
Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) evaluation.  Because the majority does not 
impose an actual suspension, I dissent. 
{¶ 32} Charles Schnurr was residing in a nursing home and needed to apply 
for long-term-care Medicaid to cover his ongoing nursing-home expenses.  
Charles’s wife, Rita, and their adult daughter, Janice Schnurr (“the Schnurrs”) hired 
Ferfolia to obtain long-term-care Medicaid on Charles’s behalf. 
{¶ 33} On March 22, 2019, Ferfolia submitted an application for long-term-
care Medicaid to the Ohio Department of Job & Family Services (“ODJFS”).  
However, he failed to timely submit documents requested by ODJFS or take steps 
to confirm Charles’s Medicaid eligibility.  Ferfolia also failed to communicate with 
the Schnurrs and the nursing home’s Medicaid manager about the status of 
Charles’s Medicaid application. 
{¶ 34} The nursing home eventually assisted the Schnurrs with the 
application, and the application was approved.  However, because of Ferfolia’s 
misconduct, the effective date of the Medicaid benefits was February 1, 2020, 
instead of March 22, 2019.  As a direct result of his misconduct, the Schnurrs 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
12 
incurred over $87,000 in nursing-home expenses that otherwise would have been 
covered by Medicaid. 
{¶ 35} Charles died in January 2021.  The Schnurrs, who are disabled and 
live on a fixed monthly income, had to pay the outstanding nursing-home expenses 
using Charles’s life-insurance proceeds and government-stimulus funds. 
{¶ 36} In May 2020, the Schnurrs hired attorney Drew Barnholtz to pursue 
a legal-malpractice action against Ferfolia.  Ferfolia told Barnholtz that he had 
professional-liability insurance, but he did not provide Barnholtz with the name of 
his carrier. 
{¶ 37} Ferfolia did not submit an insurance claim to his carrier.  Yet on two 
separate occasions, he falsely implied to Barnholtz that he had submitted a claim. 
{¶ 38} Barnholtz filed a legal-malpractice action against Ferfolia in the 
Summit County Court of Common Pleas.  Although Ferfolia was served with the 
complaint by certified mail, he did not file a timely answer or other responsive 
pleading.  The court granted Barnholtz’s motion for default judgment and 
subsequently awarded the Schnurrs $87,000 in damages plus $21,750 in attorney 
fees. 
{¶ 39} At the time of his disciplinary hearing, Ferfolia had made three 
payments totaling $13,750 but still owed the Schnurrs $95,000. 
{¶ 40} This court has held that an attorney who engages in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation generally will serve an 
actual suspension from the practice of law.  Karris, 129 Ohio St.3d 499, 2011-Ohio-
4243, 954 N.E.2d 118, at ¶ 16, citing Kraemer, 126 Ohio St.3d 163, 2010-Ohio-
3300, 931 N.E.2d 571, at ¶ 13, and Fowerbaugh, 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 658 N.E.2d 
237, at syllabus.  “[A]n actual suspension is particularly appropriate when an 
attorney’s dishonesty has been directed toward a client.” Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Stollings, 111 Ohio St.3d 155, 2006-Ohio-5345, 855 N.E.2d 479, ¶ 13.  This court 
has explained:  
January Term, 2022 
 
13 
 
A lawyer who engages in a material misrepresentation to a court or 
a pattern of dishonesty with a client violates, at a minimum, the 
lawyer’s oath of office that he or she will not “knowingly * * * 
employ or countenance any * * * deception, falsehood, or fraud.”  
Gov.Bar R. I(8)(A).  Such conduct strikes at the very core of a 
lawyer’s relationship with the court and with the client.  Respect for 
our profession is diminished with every deceitful act of a lawyer. 
 
(Ellipses sic.)  Fowerbaugh at 190. 
{¶ 41} Fowerbaugh provides the rule of decision in this case, and it holds 
that the presumptive sanction for misrepresentations to clients and tribunals is an 
actual suspension from the practice of law.  The appropriate analysis when this 
court has established a presumptive sanction for certain misconduct is to “begin[ ] 
with the presumptive sanction” and determine whether there is any reason not to 
impose it.  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Harris, 96 Ohio St.3d 138, 2002-Ohio-2988, 772 
N.E.2d 621, ¶ 9 (Cook, J., dissenting).  Only when there is “an  abundance of 
mitigating evidence” shown, Markijohn, 99 Ohio St.3d 489, 2003-Ohio-4129, 794 
N.E.2d 24, at ¶ 8, citing Kinney, 89 Ohio St.3d 77, 728 N.E.2d 1052, is the 
imposition of a sanction less severe than the one presumed under our caselaw 
warranted.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Edwards, 134 Ohio St.3d 271, 2012-Ohio-
5643, 981 N.E.2d 857, ¶ 18. 
{¶ 42} The majority finds in mitigation that Ferfolia has “no prior discipline 
and had exhibited full and free disclosure to the board and a cooperative attitude 
toward the disciplinary proceedings (after initially failing to cooperate) and 
submitted evidence of his good character and reputation.”  Majority opinion, ¶ 20.  
The majority then concludes that the mitigating factors rebut the presumption of an 
actual suspension from the practice of law.  I disagree. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
14 
{¶ 43} The mitigating factors should be considered, but they are not enough 
in this case to overcome the presumption of an actual suspension.  When imposing 
sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider the sanctions previously imposed 
in similar cases.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-
5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.  Here, our caselaw supports the imposition of an actual 
suspension from the practice of law. 
{¶ 44} In Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hickman, the attorney falsely advised a 
couple that he had filed a wrongful-death action for them and then lied repeatedly 
about how the case was progressing.  107 Ohio St.3d 296, 2005-Ohio-6513, 839 
N.E.2d 24.  In addition, Hickman previously dismissed the couple’s son’s personal-
injury action without permission and then lied about the circumstances of the 
dismissal.  The statute of limitations lapsed on both claims; however, a portion of 
the clients’ losses were covered by Hickman’s malpractice insurance. 
{¶ 45} In mitigation, we found that Hickman had no prior disciplinary 
offenses and had cooperated in the disciplinary proceedings, expressed remorse for 
his misconduct, submitted evidence of his good character and reputation, and 
acknowledged the wrongfulness of his conduct.  Id. at ¶ 10-11.  We determined that 
this mitigation was neither significantly extenuating nor unusual and concluded that 
an actual suspension was required.  Id. at ¶ 13-15.  We imposed a one-year 
suspension with six months conditionally stayed.  Id. at ¶ 15. 
{¶ 46} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Keller, the attorney was retained to 
pursue a personal-injury claim.  110 Ohio St.3d 240, 2006-Ohio-4354, 852 N.E.2d 
1195.  Keller falsely informed the client that a complaint had been filed and that he 
was negotiating with the tortfeasor’s insurance carrier.  During the representation, 
he also falsely informed the client that he had received an offer to settle from the 
tortfeasor’s insurer. 
{¶ 47} The client eventually retained new counsel, who discovered that no 
lawsuit had been filed and that the two-year statute of limitations had run.  The 
January Term, 2022 
 
15 
client sued Keller for malpractice and obtained a default judgment against him in 
the amount of $102,800, which Keller had not satisfied by the time we issued our 
decision.  See id. at ¶ 14. 
{¶ 48} We found in mitigation that Keller had no prior disciplinary record 
and that there was evidence of good character, chemical dependency, genuine 
remorse, and personal hardships—including the murder of his daughter, the 
subsequent trial of her killer, and a difficult divorce—at the time of the misconduct.  
Id. at ¶ 10. 
{¶ 49} We acknowledged Keller’s mitigating evidence but found that his 
“attempts to conceal his neglect and his failure to remedy the harm that was caused 
warrant[ed] an actual suspension.”  Id. at ¶ 13.  Keller was suspended from the 
practice of law for two years with 18 months stayed on conditions.  Id. at ¶ 14. 
{¶ 50} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnson, 122 Ohio St.3d 293, 2009-Ohio-
3501, 910 N.E.2d 1034, the attorney neglected a client’s personal-injury matter and 
falsely advised the client that the matter was moving forward and that she would 
receive the settlement proceeds by a specified date.  The statute of limitations 
eventually lapsed, leaving the client with no remedy against the tortfeasor.  Johnson 
then refused to meet with the client and stopped communicating with her 
completely.  Although Johnson had professional-malpractice insurance, she did not 
report the potential claim to her carrier. 
{¶ 51} In mitigation, Johnson had no prior discipline.  Id. at ¶ 9.  We noted 
Johnson’s assertion that she had been deeply depressed due to the death of a close 
relative, but we determined that that evidence was not sufficient to establish the 
mitigating effect of mental disability.  Id.  We imposed a one-year suspension with 
six months conditionally stayed.  Id. at ¶ 14. 
{¶ 52} And in Columbus Bar Assn. v. Roseman, the attorney neglected a 
client’s personal-injury case, resulting in the client’s being barred from litigating 
his claim in court.  147 Ohio St.3d 317, 2016-Ohio-5085, 65 N.E.3d 713.  During 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
16 
the representation, Roseman was untruthful and deceitful in his communications 
with his client regarding why the client’s case, which Roseman had dismissed 
without informing the client that he had done so, had not been refiled.  The client 
later sued Roseman for malpractice and obtained a judgment for $135,000. 
{¶ 53} We found as mitigating factors that Roseman had no prior discipline 
and had cooperated in the disciplinary proceedings.  Id. at ¶ 11.  We concluded that 
a one-year suspension from the practice of law, with six months stayed on 
conditions, was appropriate for Roseman’s neglectful and dishonest behavior 
toward his client.  Id. at ¶ 17. 
{¶ 54} Our caselaw supports finding that Ferfolia’s mitigating evidence, 
while favorable, does not overcome the presumption of an actual suspension from 
the practice of law.  There is no compelling reason here to deviate from the 
presumption that dishonest conduct toward a vulnerable client who suffers actual 
financial harm requires an actual suspension.  Ferfolia’s neglect and dishonesty 
caused significant financial hardship to his vulnerable clients, who were disabled 
and lived on a fixed monthly income.  Ferfolia has failed to remedy this harm, and 
an actual suspension for his misconduct is warranted. 
{¶ 55} I recognize the favorable mitigating evidence that is present here, but 
in my view, it is insufficient to warrant an exception to the general rule that 
dishonest conduct on the part of an attorney warrants an actual suspension from the 
practice of law.  See Karris, 129 Ohio St.3d 499, 2011-Ohio-4243, 954 N.E.2d 118, 
at ¶ 16.  Therefore, I would suspend Ferfolia from the practice of law for one year 
with six months stayed on the conditions that he commit no further misconduct and 
that within 30 days, he pay the balance of the judgment entered against him in 
Schnurr v. Ferfolia, Summit C.P. No. CV-2020-12-3358, and submit to an OLAP 
evaluation. 
{¶ 56} Because the majority does not impose an actual suspension, I 
dissent. 
January Term, 2022 
 
17 
_________________ 
Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, and Michelle R. Bowman and 
Matthew A. Kanai, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Donald B. Ferfolia Jr., pro se. 
_________________