Title: Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-8857.] 
 
 
 
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. 2017-OHIO-8857 
STARK COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. BUTTACAVOLI. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, Slip Opinion No.  
2017-Ohio-8857.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the professional-conduct rules, including 
knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal and 
committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or 
trustworthiness—Two year suspension, with 18 months stayed on 
conditions. 
(No. 2017-0227—Submitted April 5, 2017—Decided December 7, 2017.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2016-013. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Glen F. Buttacavoli, of Massillon, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0024132, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1984.  In 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
2002, we found that he had failed to fully disclose to his clients his financial interest 
in investment recommendations that he made while acting as both their lawyer and 
their financial planner and we sanctioned him with a conditionally stayed six-month 
suspension.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-
4743, 775 N.E.2d 818. 
{¶ 2} In 2016, relator, Stark County Bar Association, charged him with 
making false statements relating to his clients’ financial information while 
representing them in the Medicaid application process.  Buttacavoli stipulated to 
some of the charges against him.  After a hearing, the Board of Professional 
Conduct issued a report finding that he had engaged in some of the charged 
misconduct and recommending that we impose a two-year suspension with 18 
months conditionally stayed and require him to make restitution to two of his 
former clients before seeking reinstatement.  Neither party has objected to the 
board’s report and recommendation. 
{¶ 3} Based on our review of the record, we adopt the board’s findings of 
misconduct and its recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
Misrepresentations during the Medicaid application process 
{¶ 4} According to the parties’ stipulations, a significant portion of 
Buttacavoli’s practice is providing financial-planning advice to elderly clients, with 
the purpose of ensuring their eligibility to receive long-term-care benefits under 
Medicaid.  The board found that he had engaged in professional misconduct with 
regard to two such client matters. 
{¶ 5} First, in 2013 and 2014, Buttacavoli assisted Marquerite A. Marchant 
in transferring assets to family members, including gifting her life-estate interest in 
real property to her children, gifting the ownership of life-insurance policies to her 
daughter, and transferring stock ownership to her daughter effective upon 
Marchant’s death.  In May 2014, Buttacavoli applied for Medicaid assistance on 
January Term, 2017 
 
3
Marchant’s behalf, and the following month, the Stark County Department of Job 
and Family Services interviewed him as her representative.  During that interview, 
he falsely stated that Marchant had not transferred, sold, or given away any 
resources within the previous five years.  He also signed a statement attesting that 
the representations he made during the interview were truthful.  During his 
disciplinary proceedings, Buttacavoli admitted that his representations to the 
agency were false, that he was required by law to disclose all prior transfers, and 
that he had made the misrepresentations for the purpose of inducing the agency to 
find that his client qualified for Medicaid benefits. 
{¶ 6} Upon investigation, the Stark County Department of Job and Family 
Services discovered the life-estate interest that Marchant had gifted to her children 
and determined that the transfer should have been disclosed.  In April 2015, the 
department notified Buttacavoli that because of this error, Marchant received 
$8,640 more in Medicaid benefits than she was eligible to receive and that he, as 
her authorized representative, was responsible for repaying the amount overpaid.  
Buttacavoli issued a check for the repayment about four months later—after relator 
notified him that a grievance had been filed against him and that relator had 
reported his conduct to the county prosecuting attorney’s office. 
{¶ 7} In September 2015, Buttacavoli pled guilty to a first-degree 
misdemeanor charge of falsification under R.C. 2921.13(A)(4), which prohibits a 
person from knowingly making a false statement with the purpose of securing a 
benefit administered by a governmental agency.  The Stark County Court of 
Common Pleas ordered him to serve a 180-day suspended sentence and pay a $500 
fine and court costs. 
{¶ 8} The second client matter involved Sally Daywalt, whom Buttacavoli 
represented around the same time that he represented Marchant.  Similar to what 
he had done in the Marchant matter, Buttacavoli assisted Daywalt with gifting her 
life-estate interest in real property to her children and then later failed to disclose 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
that transfer when seeking Medicaid benefits on Daywalt’s behalf.  The Stark 
County Department of Job and Family Services later discovered the life-estate-
interest transfer and restricted Daywalt’s coverage. 
{¶ 9} Based on this conduct, the board found that in both client matters, 
Buttacavoli violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly 
making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal), 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or 
trustworthiness), 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice). 
{¶ 10} We adopt these findings of misconduct. 
Failure to advise clients about the possibility of a refund 
{¶ 11} Buttacavoli stipulated that in the Marchant matter, the Daywalt 
matter, and a third client matter, he charged a fixed, nonrefundable fee but did not 
also advise his clients that they would be entitled to a refund of all or a portion of 
that fee if he failed to complete the representation.  The board found that he 
therefore committed three violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(d)(3) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from charging a fee denominated as “nonrefundable” without 
simultaneously advising the client in writing that the client may be entitled to a 
refund of all or part of the fee if the lawyer does not complete the representation). 
{¶ 12} We adopt these findings of misconduct.  We also dismiss any 
remaining charges against Buttacavoli that were not expressly dismissed during the 
board proceedings. 
Sanction 
{¶ 13} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
several 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. 
January Term, 2017 
 
5
Aggravating and mitigating factors 
{¶ 14} The board found the following aggravating factors: prior 
disciplinary offenses, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, and failure to 
make restitution.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(1), (3), (4), and (9).  Indeed, 
Buttacavoli admitted that he had charged Marchant $6,800 and Daywalt $5,500 to 
represent them in the Medicaid application process and that he had failed to 
complete the representations or to refund their money. 
{¶ 15} In mitigation, the board found that Buttacavoli had made full and 
free disclosures to the board and had had a cooperative attitude toward the 
disciplinary proceedings, he had presented evidence of good character and 
reputation, and he had been subjected to other penalties or sanctions—namely, the 
misdemeanor conviction and the penalties associated with the conviction.  See 
Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(4), (5), and (6). 
Applicable precedent 
{¶ 16} To support its recommended sanction, the board relied on Toledo 
Bar Assn. v. DeMarco, 144 Ohio St.3d 248, 2015-Ohio-4549, 41 N.E.3d 1237, and 
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Farrell, 119 Ohio St.3d 529, 2008-Ohio-4540, 895 N.E.2d 
800.  Both cases recognize our precedent that an attorney’s course of conduct 
involving dishonesty usually warrants an actual suspension from the practice of 
law.  DeMarco at ¶ 12; Farrell at ¶ 19-21. 
{¶ 17} In DeMarco, an attorney made a series of false statements directly 
to a court about his possession of discovery materials.  Specifically, he repeatedly 
represented to the court that he had never had the materials when, in fact, he had 
had them at one time.  During one court proceeding, a witness truthfully testified 
that he had given the materials to the attorney and the attorney responded by 
threatening to take the witness “outside.”  Id. at ¶ 6, 14.  Despite the egregious facts, 
we found that the attorney’s misconduct was an aberration in an otherwise 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
unblemished 45-year legal career and imposed a one-year suspension with six 
months conditionally stayed.  Id. at ¶ 14-16. 
{¶ 18} In Farrell, an attorney had forged his wife’s signature on a power of 
attorney, lied to another attorney to secure notarization of the power of attorney, 
used the forged document to obtain a line of credit, and fabricated numerous other 
documents—including letters purportedly from a bank and the United States Postal 
Service—to cover up his deceit.  Given the attorney’s “web of deception,” we 
suspended him for two years but stayed the second year on conditions.  Id. at ¶ 17, 
23. 
{¶ 19} Buttacavoli’s misconduct here is more similar to the misconduct in 
DeMarco than in Farrell.  However, unlike the attorney in DeMarco, Buttacavoli 
has been disciplined before.  We therefore agree with the board that the appropriate 
sanction here lies between the sanctions that we imposed in DeMarco and Farrell. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 20} Having considered Buttacavoli’s misconduct, the applicable 
mitigating and aggravating factors, and the sanctions imposed for similar 
misconduct, we adopt the board’s recommended sanction.  Glen F. Buttacavoli is 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years with 18 months stayed on 
the conditions that he engage in no further misconduct and pay the costs of these 
proceedings.  If Buttacavoli fails to comply with the conditions of the stay, the stay 
will be lifted and he will serve the full two-year suspension.  Buttacavoli’s 
reinstatement is conditioned upon his providing proof that he made restitution to 
Marchant in the amount of $6,800 and to Daywalt, by issuing payment to her son, 
Robert Venables, in the amount of $5,500. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, O’NEILL, FISCHER, 
and DEWINE, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
January Term, 2017 
 
7
Richard S. Milligan, Bar Counsel, and James M. Conley, for relator. 
Robert H. Cyperski, for respondent. 
_________________