Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. DeGidio

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. DeGidio, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-1509.] 
 
 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-1509 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. DEGIDIO. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. DeGidio,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-1509.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Failure to maintain client funds in a separate account 
or to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation—Two-year suspension, 
one year stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2012-1697—Submitted January 23, 2013—Decided April 18, 2013.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 12-043. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Anthony James DeGidio Jr. of Toledo, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0069064, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
1998.  In June 2012, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged DeGidio with 
commingling personal and client funds in his client trust account, using that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
account to pay personal expenses, and failing to cooperate in the ensuing 
disciplinary investigation. 
{¶ 2} Although DeGidio received relator’s complaint by certified mail, 
he did not answer it.  Consequently, relator moved for default.  A master 
commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline granted relator’s motion for default, found that relator had proven by 
clear and convincing evidence that DeGidio committed the charged misconduct, 
and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for two years, 
with the second year stayed. 
{¶ 3} The board adopted the master commissioner’s findings of fact and 
misconduct.  While the board agrees that a two-year suspension, with the second 
year stayed, is the appropriate sanction for DeGidio’s misconduct, it further 
recommends that the stay be conditioned on his completion of a continuing legal 
education (“CLE”) course addressing the proper use and maintenance of a client 
trust account.  Having considered DeGidio’s misconduct, the aggravating and 
mitigating factors present, and the sanctions imposed for comparable misconduct, 
we adopt the board’s recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} On February 15, 2011, relator received a notice from Huntington 
National Bank that DeGidio had overdrawn his client trust account by $395.58.  
Relator sent letters of inquiry to the home and business addresses that respondent 
had provided to the Office of Attorney Registration.  Although the letters sent by 
certified mail were returned unclaimed, those sent by regular mail were not 
returned.  DeGidio requested and received an extension of time to respond to the 
inquiry, but he did not submit a response until prompted by an e-mail from 
relator.  In response to relator’s request for additional information, DeGidio sent a 
brief reply and requested and received another extension of time to respond, but 
once again he failed to provide the requested information.  He did not respond to a 
January Term, 2013 
 
3
follow-up letter or a subpoena duces tecum ordering him to appear at relator’s 
office on February 13, 2012, although the subpoena was personally served on 
him.  On February 24, however, he requested by e-mail that the deposition be 
rescheduled due to his illness; it is apparent from the e-mail that DeGidio believed 
that the deposition was scheduled for that day.  Relator offered to grant DeGidio 
additional time if he would waive the one-year time limit for completing relator’s 
investigation.  DeGidio never responded to that offer or to any subsequent 
communications from relator. 
{¶ 5} The bank records subpoenaed by relator demonstrate that from 
August 2010 through June 2011, DeGidio deposited personal funds, including a 
birthday check he had received from his sister, into his client trust account.  He 
also used his trust account to pay personal and business expenses and wrote and 
negotiated five trust account checks that were issued payable to “Cash.” 
{¶ 6} DeGidio’s client trust account had a balance of $1,007.42 on 
January 19, 2011, when he deposited a $5,650 check from a client.  DeGidio 
issued a $450 check to cover fees associated with the filing of the client’s appeal 
in a federal court of appeals.  But before the clerk could negotiate the check, 
DeGidio issued an additional $6,595 in checks—a $5,000 check for his fee, a 
check for a personal or business obligation, and a check for cash.  Thus, when the 
$450 check was negotiated, the account became overdrawn. 
{¶ 7} The board found that DeGidio violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) 
(requiring a lawyer to hold property of clients in an interest-bearing client trust 
account, separate from the lawyer’s own property), 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from knowingly failing to respond to a demand for information by a disciplinary 
authority during an investigation), 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 8.4(h) (prohibiting 
a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
to practice law) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a 
disciplinary investigation).  We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio 
St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 9} The only aggravating factor found by the board was DeGidio’s 
lack of cooperation in the disciplinary investigation, and the only mitigating factor 
found was the absence of a prior disciplinary record.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(e) and (2)(a). 
{¶ 10} Relator and the master commissioner recommended that DeGidio 
be suspended from the practice of law for two years and that the second year of 
the suspension be stayed.  The board adopted that recommendation, but also 
recommends that we condition the stay on DeGidio’s completion of a CLE course 
on the proper use and maintenance of a client trust account. 
{¶ 11} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Morgan, 114 Ohio St.3d 179, 2007-
Ohio-3604, 870 N.E.2d 1171, we imposed a two-year suspension, with one year 
conditionally stayed, on an attorney who had commingled funds in his client trust 
account, overdrawn the account multiple times, and failed to cooperate in the 
resulting disciplinary suspension.  In light of DeGidio’s improper use of his client 
trust account, the resulting overdraft, and his failure to cooperate in the resulting 
investigation, we find that the board’s recommended sanction is commensurate 
with sanctions imposed for comparable misconduct and thus is appropriate. 
January Term, 2013 
 
5
{¶ 12} Accordingly, Anthony James DeGidio Jr. is suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio for two years, with the second year stayed on the 
conditions that he commit no further misconduct and complete six hours of CLE 
in trust-account management in addition to the CLE requirements of Gov.Bar R. 
X.  Costs are taxed to DeGidio. 
Judgment accordingly. 
PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O’Neill, JJ., 
concur. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., dissents and would impose an indefinite suspension 
upon respondent. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek 
Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
______________________