Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Costabile

Citation: 2015-Ohio-2082

Docket Number: 2014-1743

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2015-06-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Costabile, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2082.] 
 
 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-2082 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. COSTABILE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Costabile, Slip Opinion  
No. 2015-Ohio-2082.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Conviction for violation of public-official 
financial-disclosure law—Conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to 
practice law—Public reprimand. 
(No. 2014-1743—Submitted January 14, 2015—Decided June 4, 2015.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2014-033. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Gregory Steven Costabile of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0061513, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1993.  
On April 7, 2014, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Costabile with 
professional misconduct after Costabile, the former mayor and safety director of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Mayfield Heights, Ohio, was convicted of violating Ohio public-official financial-
disclosure laws by failing to include on a 2005 financial-disclosure statement 
$100,000 that he received as income from Hidden Woods, L.L.C., and by failing 
to include on a 2010 financial-disclosure statement the amount of income he 
received from Seagull Development Corporation. 
{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline1 considered the cause on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 11.2   
{¶ 3} In the consent-to-discipline agreement, Costabile stipulates to the 
facts alleged in relator’s complaint and agrees that his conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that 
adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
{¶ 4} The parties stipulate that the mitigating factors include the absence 
of a prior disciplinary record, Costabile’s cooperative attitude toward the 
disciplinary proceedings, evidence of his good character and reputation, and the 
imposition of other penalties and sanctions as a result of his criminal conviction.  
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (d), (e), and (f).3  The parties agree that there 
are no aggravating factors.  Based upon Costabile’s stipulated misconduct and 
these factors, the parties stipulate that the appropriate sanction is a public 
reprimand. 
{¶ 5} The panel and board found that the consent-to-discipline agreement 
conforms to BCGD Proc.Reg. 11 and recommend that we adopt the agreement in 
its entirety.  In support of its recommendation, the panel refers to Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Taft, 112 Ohio St.3d 155, 2006-Ohio-6525, 858 N.E.2d 414 (a public 
                                                 
1 Effective January 1, 2015, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has been 
renamed the Board of Professional Conduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(1)(A), 140 Ohio St.3d CII. 
2  Effective January 1, 2015, Gov.Bar R. V(16), 140 Ohio St.3d CXXX, governs consent-to-
discipline agreements. 
3 Effective January 1, 2015, the aggravating and mitigating factors previously set forth in BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B) are codified in Gov.Bar R. V(13), 140 Ohio St.3d CXXIV. 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
reprimand was the appropriate sanction for an attorney who violated public-
official financial-reporting requirements), and Disciplinary Counsel v. Gwinn, 
138 Ohio St.3d 167, 2014-Ohio-101, 4 N.E.3d 1039 (a public reprimand was the 
appropriate sanction for an attorney who violated election-law disclosure 
requirements). 
{¶ 6} We agree that Costabile violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) and that this 
conduct warrants a public reprimand.  Therefore, we adopt the parties’ consent-to-
discipline agreement. 
{¶ 7} Accordingly, Gregory Steven Costabile is hereby publicly 
reprimanded.  Costs are taxed to Costabile. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek Beckman, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Richard C. Alkire Co., L.P.A., and Richard C. Alkire, for respondent. 
______________________