[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 

Disciplinary Counsel v. Bucio, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-8709.] 

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-8709

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BUCIO. 

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bucio, Slip Opinion No. 

2017-Ohio-8709.] 

Attorneys—Misconduct—Misappropriation of client funds—Sufficient mitigation 

outweighs presumptive sanction of disbarment—Indefinite suspension with no 

credit for time served under interim felony suspension.

(No. 2017-0800—Submitted July 11, 2017—Decided November 29, 2017.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 

Court, No. 2015-053. 

_______________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, Christopher Ramon Bucio, of Urbana, Ohio, Attorney 

Registration No. 0076517, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2003. In 

January 2017, we suspended Bucio’s license on an interim basis after receiving 

notice of his felony conviction for unauthorized use of a client’s property in 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

violation of R.C. 2913.04. In re Bucio, 149 Ohio St.3d 1243, 2017-Ohio-29, 75 

N.E.2d 1257. 

{¶ 2} In 2015, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Bucio with 

professional misconduct based on the facts that led to his felony conviction. Bucio 

stipulated to most of the charges against him, and after a hearing, a three-member 

panel of the Board of Professional Conduct found that he violated the professionalconduct rules and recommended that he serve a two-year suspension, with the 

second year stayed on conditions and with no credit for time served under his 

interim felony suspension. Upon review, the board adopted the panel’s findings of 

misconduct but increased the recommended sanction, concluding that an indefinite 

suspension, with no credit for time served, was the appropriate sanction for Bucio’s 

misconduct. The board also recommends that we prohibit him from petitioning for 

reinstatement until he successfully completes or is released from his five-year 

community-control sanction imposed as part of his criminal sentence. Bucio did 

not object to the board’s report and recommendation. 

{¶ 3} Based on our independent review, we adopt the parties’ stipulations 

of fact and misconduct and agree with the board’s recommended sanction. 

Misconduct 

{¶ 4} On August 18, 2010, local law-enforcement authorities arrested Linda 

Heuker after finding a marijuana-growing operation in the basement of her home. 

Heuker’s adult children met with Bucio about potentially representing their mother, 

and he visited her in jail. Heuker advised Bucio that she did not have enough cash 

for attorney fees but that she would be willing to sell a 22-acre parcel of farmland 

to pay for representation. Bucio suggested that she transfer the property to him and 

that he would take care of the details, and she agreed to the proposal. At all relevant 

times, Heuker believed that she would transfer her land to Bucio as a retainer for 

his legal services and that he would thereafter sell the land on her behalf, deduct his 
January Term, 2017 

3

attorney fees and expenses from the sale proceeds, and provide her with the 

remaining balance from the sale. 

{¶ 5} While in jail, Heuker also signed a fee agreement requiring her to pay 

Bucio’s law firm a flat fee for each stage of the representation. Specifically, the 

agreement provided that she would pay $30,000 for representation during the 

pretrial stage of her case, $40,000 for representation during the trial stage, and 

$10,000 for representation during the motion stage. On the first page of the 

agreement, a handwritten notation indicated that Heuker would transfer her land in 

exchange for full payment of legal fees and expenses. Heuker later claimed that 

when she signed the fee agreement, she saw only the signature page and was not 

given an opportunity to review the other pages in the document. 

{¶ 6} Bucio thereafter worked out a plea agreement with the county 

prosecuting attorney, and on September 1, 2010, about two weeks after the police 

arrested her, Heuker pled guilty to a third-degree felony and was released from jail. 

{¶ 7} Around the same time, Heuker signed a deed transferring her 

farmland to Bucio’s law firm. Before entering into the transaction, Bucio failed to 

comply with the professional-conduct rule designed to protect a client against his 

or her attorney’s potential overreaching when the attorney enters into a business 

transaction with the client. For example, Bucio failed to fully disclose in writing 

the terms on which he was acquiring an interest in Heuker’s property, he failed to 

advise her of the desirability of seeking independent legal counsel before entering 

into the transaction or give her a reasonable opportunity to seek such advice, and 

he failed to obtain her informed consent to the essential terms of the transaction and 

his role in it. Consequently, the parties stipulated that he violated Prof.Cond.R. 

1.8(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from entering into a business transaction with a client 

unless specific conditions are met). 

{¶ 8} By October 2010, Bucio’s law firm had transferred Heuker’s 

farmland to a real-estate company owned by the law-firm partners, which then sold 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

the land for $135,000. After paying various expenses—including Heuker’s 

outstanding mortgage on the land and a judgment against her from a related 

municipal-court case—the real-estate company netted $127,767.02 from the sale, 

and through various real-estate transactions, the company transferred that money to 

Bucio. However, neither Bucio nor anyone associated with his law firm advised 

Heuker of the sale or the sale price of her land. Based on this conduct, the parties 

stipulated that Bucio violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep 

the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter). 

{¶ 9} Beginning in 2011, Heuker attempted to contact Bucio on multiple 

occasions about the remaining money from the sale of her farmland. Bucio, 

however, did not return her phone calls. He also cancelled appointments that she 

had made with his staff. The parties stipulated that Bucio’s failure to communicate 

with his client violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply as 

soon as practicable with reasonable requests for information from the client). 

{¶ 10} In August 2011, Bucio informed Heuker of his position that she was 

not entitled to any portion of the farmland’s sale proceeds because he had accepted 

the land as a flat fee for representing her in the criminal case. Bucio later 

acknowledged, however, that he spent only about 40 hours working on Heuker’s 

case and that if he had charged his hourly rate of $225, he would have received 

$9,000 for the representation. Thus, the parties stipulated that by accepting 

Heuker’s land as a fee for representing her in the criminal matter, Bucio collected 

a clearly excessive fee in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer 

from making an agreement for, charging, or collecting an illegal or clearly 

excessive fee). 

{¶ 11} In 2012, Heuker retained counsel and filed a civil lawsuit against 

Bucio and others for legal malpractice and related claims. However, a trial court 

found her claims time barred under the one-year limitations period for malpractice 

actions, and that decision was affirmed on appeal. See Heuker v. Roberts, Kelly & 
January Term, 2017 

5

Bucio, L.L.P., 2013-Ohio-3987, 998 N.E.2d 827 (3d Dist.). Nonetheless, the 

Shelby County prosecuting attorney had heard about the situation and asked the 

Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation to investigate the transaction between Bucio 

and his client. That investigation eventually led to Bucio’s 2016 guilty plea to one 

count of unauthorized use of property in violation of R.C. 2913.04(A), a fourthdegree felony. In January 2017, the Shelby County Court of Common Pleas 

sentenced Bucio to five years of community control and ordered him to pay a 

$5,000 fine. Based on his conviction, the parties stipulated that Bucio violated 

Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from committing an illegal act that 

reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness). 

{¶ 12} In February 2016, Bucio agreed to pay Heuker $97,767.02 to settle 

the matter. The parties calculated the restitution amount by deducting $30,000—

Bucio’s flat fee for representing Heuker in the pretrial stage of her criminal case 

pursuant to their fee agreement—from $127,767.02, which was the amount that he 

had received from the sale of her farmland. By January 2017, Bucio paid Heuker 

the entire amount, and the parties stipulated that no additional restitution is owed. 

{¶ 13} We adopt the parties’ stipulations of fact and misconduct. We also 

dismiss any remaining charges alleged in the complaint. 

Sanction 

{¶ 14} 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. 

Aggravating and mitigating factors

{¶ 15} As aggravating factors, the board found that Bucio had a dishonest 

motive and engaged in multiple offenses. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(2) and (4). 

The board also noted that Heuker suffered significant financial harm as a result of 

Bucio’s misconduct, as she was forced to initiate civil litigation in an attempt to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

recoup her money, and she did not receive her portion of the sale proceeds until six 

years after the sale. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(8). In addition, the panel noted that 

Bucio did not express remorse or accept responsibility for his actions until 2016, 

after his criminal conviction. 

{¶ 16} In mitigation, Bucio has no prior discipline and other penalties and 

sanctions have been imposed—namely, his conviction and sentence. See Gov.Bar 

R. V(13)(C)(1) and (6). 

Applicable precedent 

{¶ 17} The board found that by retaining the proceeds from the sale of 

Heuker’s land, Bucio essentially misappropriated his client’s funds. Although the 

presumptive sanction for such conduct is disbarment, the board concluded that an 

indefinite suspension was appropriate here, citing two similar misappropriation 

cases: Disciplinary Counsel v. Peterson, 135 Ohio St.3d 110, 2012-Ohio-5719, 

984 N.E.2d 1035, and Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Harris, 96 Ohio St.3d 138, 2002-

Ohio-2988, 772 N.E.2d 621. 

{¶ 18} In Peterson, an attorney improperly entered into a business 

transaction with a client without obtaining the client’s informed consent and then 

stole funds from the client. The attorney was convicted of fourth-degree felony 

theft and sentenced to 30 days in jail and five years of community control and 

ordered to pay $80,000 in restitution. Given the mitigating factors in the case—

including that the attorney lacked a prior disciplinary record, made restitution, 

served other sanctions for the misconduct, and accepted responsibility for his 

actions—we found that an indefinite suspension was warranted. 

{¶ 19} In Harris, an attorney converted money entrusted to him by an 

institutionalized client and failed to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary 

investigation. Although we acknowledged that we typically impose the strictest 

discipline—permanent disbarment—in misappropriation cases, we found sufficient 
January Term, 2017 

7

mitigating factors to warrant an indefinite suspension, including his lack of prior 

discipline and the evidence he submitted of good character and reputation. 

{¶ 20} We agree with the board that Bucio’s egregious misconduct here was 

tantamount to misappropriation of client funds. But we also agree that similar to 

Peterson and Harris, sufficient mitigating factors weigh against the presumptive 

sanction of disbarment, including Bucio’s lack of prior discipline, the imposition 

of other penalties for his misconduct, his restitution, and his acknowledgment, 

albeit belatedly, of the wrongfulness of his actions. Accordingly, we adopt the 

board’s recommended sanction. 

Conclusion 

{¶ 21} For the reasons explained above, Christopher Ramon Bucio is 

indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio, with no credit for time 

served under his interim felony suspension. He may not petition for reinstatement 

until he successfully completes or is released from the community-control sanction 

imposed as part of his criminal sentence. Costs are taxed to Bucio. 

Judgment accordingly. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, O’NEILL, FISCHER,

and DEWINE, JJ., concur. 

_________________ 

Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, Joseph M. Caligiuri, Chief Assistant 

Disciplinary Counsel, and Karen H. Osmond, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for 

relator. 

Bieser, Greer & Landis, L.L.P., and David Carr Greer; and Charles J. 

Kettlewell, for respondent. 

_________________