[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-Ohio4743, 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-estateinterest 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. 

_________________