Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Fucetola

Citation: 2001-Ohio-1303

Docket Number: 20010691

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-08-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Fucetola, 93 Ohio St.3d 145, 2001-Ohio-1303] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. FUCETOLA. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Fucetola (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 145.] 
Unauthorized practice of law — Attorney not authorized to practice law in Ohio 
appearing in court prior to the court’s ruling on his motion to appear 
pro hac vice and not applying to appear pro hac vice in two other cases 
— Engagement in the unauthorized practice of law enjoined. 
(No. 01-691 — Submitted May 30, 2001 — Decided August 15, 2001.) 
ON FINAL REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice 
of Law, No. UPL 99-4. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On September 9, 1997, respondent, Ralph Fucetola III of 
Newton, New Jersey, an attorney in good standing in New Jersey but not admitted 
to the bar of Ohio, filed a complaint in the Athens County Court of Common 
Pleas on behalf of Sharry Edwards and others.  At the same time, respondent filed 
a motion to appear pro hac vice, to which an Ohio attorney at law consented.  
Although the court did not rule upon the pro hac vice motion until June 26, 1998, 
all parties and the court proceeded as though it had been granted.  In addition to 
the complaint, respondent filed a response to a motion, a cross-motion, opposition 
to a motion, and interrogatories in the case on behalf of Edwards. On June 26, 
1998, the court denied respondent’s motion to appear pro hac vice. 
 
In the meantime, on October 8, 1997, respondent, without having filed a 
motion to appear pro hac vice, represented Edwards in another case in the same 
court, which was settled and dismissed on July 1, 1998.  Moreover, on March 2, 
1998, without filing a motion to appear pro hac vice, respondent filed an answer 
and counterclaim on behalf of Edwards in a third case in the same court. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
On November 15, 1999, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint 
alleging the facts as above and charging respondent with engaging in the 
unauthorized practice of law.  Respondent answered and stated that Edwards was 
his long-time client, that she could not find an attorney in Athens County who 
would represent her in a particular matter involving intellectual property, that 
respondent prepared a suit on her behalf and simultaneously moved to appear pro 
hac vice, and that the court and opposing counsel acted as though the motion had 
been granted.  Shortly after the motion to appear pro hac vice was denied, 
Edwards obtained local counsel to represent her in the two remaining cases. 
 
At a hearing, the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of 
Law (“board”) received stipulations supporting these facts and concluded that 
respondent had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.  The board 
recommended that respondent be enjoined from engaging in the unauthorized 
practice of law in Ohio in the future. 
 
We have permitted non-Ohio lawyers to practice in Ohio if their practice 
is an “isolated occurrence” of limited duration, provided the attorney gains pro 
hac vice admission from the court in which he intends to appear.  See Royal 
Indem. Co. v. J.C. Penney Co. (1986), 27 Ohio St.3d 31, 27 OBR 447, 501 N.E.2d 
617. Cf. Gov.Bar R. I(9)(H), which provides that an attorney not admitted in Ohio 
may appear with permission of the judge hearing the cause. 
 
Here, respondent appeared in court prior to the court’s ruling on his 
motion to appear pro hac vice.  Respondent did not have the permission of the 
judge hearing the first case in which he appeared on behalf of Edwards, and did 
not even apply when he appeared in the second and third cases. Respondent is 
hereby enjoined from further activity constituting the unauthorized practice of law 
in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
January Term, 2001 
3 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kenneth R. Donchatz, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Ralph Fucetola III, pro se. 
__________________