Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Scacchetti

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. Scacchetti, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-223.] 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-223 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SCACCHETTI. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Scacchetti,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-223.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Violations relating to client trust account—
Failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation—Neglect of legal 
matter—Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2011-1409—Submitted October 5, 2011—Decided January 26, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-043. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, David John Scacchetti of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0014117, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1982.  In 
June 2007, we suspended Scacchetti for two years, with the final 18 months 
stayed on conditions based upon his cocaine use and related criminal charges.  
Disciplinary Counsel v. Scacchetti, 114 Ohio St.3d 36, 2007-Ohio-2713, 867 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
N.E.2d 830.  We reinstated Scacchetti to the practice of law and placed him on 
probation on March 20, 2008.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Scacchetti, 117 Ohio St.3d 
1216, 2008-Ohio-1489, 883 N.E.2d 1073.1   And on November 1, 2011, we 
suspended his license for failure to comply with the registration requirements of 
Gov.Bar R. VI for the 2011-2013 biennium.  In re Attorney Registration 
Suspension of Scacchetti, 130 Ohio St.3d 1420, 1423, 2011-Ohio-5627, 956 
N.E.2d 310. 
{¶ 2} On April 11, 2011, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint 
charging Scacchetti with violations of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, 
alleging that he had commingled personal and client funds, used his client trust 
account as a personal account or law-office operating account, neglected a client 
matter, and failed to respond in the ensuing disciplinary investigations.  The 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline attempted to serve 
Scacchetti with a copy of the complaint by certified mail at the address he had 
registered with the Office of Attorney Registration, but the letter was returned 
unclaimed. On May 9, 2011, the clerk of the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted 
service on Scacchetti’s behalf in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B), and 
relator moved for default judgment pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F) on June 23, 
2011. 
{¶ 3} The board referred the motion to a master commissioner, who 
found that the materials relator offered in support of his default motion were 
sufficient and that relator had proven each of the alleged violations of the Rules of 
Professional Conduct by clear and convincing evidence.  The master 
commissioner, however, rejected relator’s recommended two-year suspension 
from the practice of law in favor of an indefinite suspension.  The board adopted 
                                                 
1 As of the date of this opinion, Scacchetti has not applied for termination of his probation as 
required by Gov.Bar R. V(9)(D).   
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
the master commissioner’s findings of fact and misconduct and his recommended 
sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} The essence of the board’s findings is as follows.  With regard to 
count one, relator received notice from Scacchetti’s bank that he had overdrawn 
his client trust account on five separate occasions.  In response to those notices, 
relator sent letters of inquiry seeking Scacchetti’s explanation of the overdrafts.  
Although Scacchetti submitted a partial response to one letter, spoke with 
assistant disciplinary counsel by telephone, and requested and received an 
extension of time to provide additional information, he did not provide any 
additional information or respond to relator’s subsequent correspondence.  
Scacchetti was subpoenaed to attend two depositions, but failed to appear. 
{¶ 5} The board also found that from May 2009 through November 
2010, Scacchetti commingled personal and client funds in his client trust account, 
used that account as if it were a personal account or law-office operating account, 
and caused the account to be overdrawn on five separate occasions. 
{¶ 6} With respect to count two, the board found that respondent 
represented Mariscal Protasio Cortez on a felony theft matter before the Hamilton 
County Court of Common Pleas.  Cortez entered a guilty plea to a first-degree 
misdemeanor theft charge and, as part of the plea agreement, provided Scacchetti 
with $100 to pay restitution to the victim of the offense.  Although Scacchetti 
informed the presiding judge that he would make the payment and provide the 
court with a copy of the receipt, he failed to do so.  And, as in count one, 
Scacchetti failed to respond to relator’s letters of inquiry. 
{¶ 7} Based upon its factual findings, the board found that respondent’s 
conduct with respect to count one violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (requiring a 
lawyer to hold funds of clients in an interest-bearing client trust account, separate 
from the lawyer’s own property), 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
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 to practice law) 
and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a disciplinary 
investigation). 
{¶ 8} With respect to count two, the board found that respondent’s 
conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable 
diligence in representing a client), 1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver 
funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive), 8.1(b), 
8.4(d), and 8.4(h) and Gov.Bar R. (V)(4)(G). 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} 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 Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.   
{¶ 10} The board found that there are no mitigating factors present but 
that Scacchetti’s prior disciplinary record, his pattern of misconduct, and his 
failure to cooperate in the disciplinary process are aggravating factors in this case.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (c), and (e).  The board also found that on April 15, 
2011, respondent pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of possession of drug 
paraphernalia and was sentenced to two years of community control, conditioned 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
upon his submission to random urine testing and participation in outpatient 
treatment. 
{¶ 11} Relator recommended that Scacchetti be suspended from the 
practice of law with reinstatement conditioned upon his successful completion of 
a minimum two-year contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program 
(“OLAP”) and any OLAP treatment recommendations, compliance with the terms 
of his community control, and completion of continuing legal education relating 
to client trust accounts. 
{¶ 12} Having considered Scacchetti’s conduct, the relevant aggravating 
factors, the absence of any mitigating factors, and the sanction imposed for 
comparable conduct in Dayton Bar Assn. v. Wilson, 127 Ohio St.3d 10, 2010-
Ohio-4937, 935 N.E.2d 841 (imposing an indefinite suspension on an attorney 
who failed to maintain accurate records of the funds held in her client trust 
account, failed to promptly deliver funds that a client was entitled to receive, 
failed to provide diligent and competent legal representation to another client, and 
failed to cooperate in the resulting disciplinary investigation), the board 
recommends that we indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law. 
{¶ 13} Clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that Scacchetti 
neglected the legal matters of his client, failed to promptly deliver funds or other 
property that a third party was entitled to receive, and failed to cooperate in the 
ensuing disciplinary investigation.2  We have recognized that “[a] lawyer’s 
                                                 
2 Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F)(1)(b) provides that a motion for default in a disciplinary proceeding shall 
contain “[s]worn or certified documentary prima facie evidence in support of the allegations 
made.”  Relator’s exhibits 3 through 57 include photocopies of letters relator purportedly sent to 
Scacchetti, bank records, photocopies of checks deposited into and drafted on Scacchetti’s client 
trust account, a letter purportedly sent to relator by Scacchetti, a transcript of an attempted 
deposition, two subpoenas duces tecum purportedly served upon Scacchetti, and overdraft notices 
purportedly sent to relator by Scacchetti’s bank.  Although relator has also submitted the affidavit 
of an assistant disciplinary counsel detailing relator’s efforts to communicate with Scacchetti, that 
affidavit does not state that the documents submitted with the affidavit are true copies or 
reproductions of the originals sent to or received from Scacchetti.   Because the record contains no 
sworn or certified evidence relating to Scacchetti’s handling of his client trust account, we cannot 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
neglect of legal matters and failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary 
investigation generally warrant an indefinite suspension from the practice of law 
in Ohio.” Akron Bar Assn. v. Goodlet, 115 Ohio St.3d 7, 2007-Ohio-4271, 873 
N.E.2d 815, ¶ 20. 
{¶ 14} Therefore, we agree that the indefinite suspension recommended 
by the board is the appropriate sanction in this case.  In light of Scacchetti’s 
previous, drug-related suspension and his recent conviction for possession of 
illegal drug paraphernalia, we also agree that to protect the public and maintain 
the integrity of the legal profession, any future reinstatement will be conditioned 
upon his entering into a minimum two-year OLAP contract and compliance with 
all OLAP treatment recommendations, compliance with the conditions of his 
community control, and completion of at least 12 hours of continuing legal 
education related to law-practice management. 
{¶ 15} Therefore, we indefinitely suspend David John Scacchetti from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Any future reinstatement will be conditioned upon 
Scacchetti’s submission of proof that he has entered into a minimum two-year 
OLAP contract, is in compliance with all OLAP treatment recommendations, is in 
compliance with the conditions of his community control, and has completed least 
12 hours of continuing legal education related to law-practice management.  Costs 
are taxed to Scacchetti. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
 
 
                                                                                                                                     
adopt the board’s findings of fact or misconduct with regard to his alleged violation of 
Prof.Cond.R 1.15(a).  See Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Newman, 124 Ohio St.3d 505, 2010-Ohio-928, 
924 N.E.2d 359, ¶ 8-9.  Based on the evidence supporting the other violations, however, the lack 
of certified evidence on this violation does not alter the outcome of this case. 
 
 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek 
Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
______________________