Dayton Bar Association v. Scaccia
141 Ohio St. 3d 35
| Ohio | 2014Background
- Relator Dayton Bar Association charged Scaccia with neglect, improper trust accounting, and nonrefundable fees in multiple matters.
- Two complaints were consolidated after a panel hearing; board recommended one-year suspension with six months stayed.
- Mound matter: $21,875 in client funds were deposited in Scaccia’s trust; expenditures documented only $4,716.86, leaving $17,158.14 undocumented; records from 2004–2007 were incomplete.
- Grider matter: Scaccia charged a flat nonrefundable fee and deposited it into operating rather than trust account, with no complete accounting provided.
- Willis matter: Scaccia deposited $2,500 into operating account and delayed filing a motion for judicial release, failing to deposit funds in trust; In the end, findings supported client fund and accounting violations.
- Court suspended Scaccia for one year with six months stayed, ordered restitution to Mound clients, and conditioned reinstatement on CLE, probation, and full accounting within 90 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Scaccia violate trust accounting and recordkeeping rules in the Mound matter? | Relator asserts neglect and failure to maintain client funds records. | Scaccia contests the severity and argues lack of clear and convincing evidence. | Yes; violations of DR 6-101, DR 9-102(B)(3), and Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)-(a)(4) were found. |
| Did Scaccia breach nonrefundable fee and trust deposit rules in the Grider matter? | Relator alleges nonrefundable fee charged and misplacement of funds. | Scaccia contends no clear, convincing evidence of misconduct. | Yes; violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(d)(3), 1.15(a), and 1.15(c) were found. |
| Did Scaccia violate trust-account rules in the Willis matter and related conduct? | Relator contends funds were not deposited to trust and delays harmed client. | Scaccia claims diligence and reasonable actions. | Yes; violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)-(c) were found. |
| Is the sanction and restitution appropriate given the misconduct? | Relator seeks appropriate discipline and restitution. | Scaccia argues for lighter sanction. | One-year suspension with six months stayed; restitution required; reinstatement conditioned on restitution and further compliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rucker, 134 Ohio St.3d 282 (2012-Ohio-5642) (sanctions vary with aggravating and mitigating factors; consent-to-discipline case cited)
- Toledo Bar Assn. v. Royer, 979 N.E.2d 329 (Ohio 2012) (one-year stayed suspension for neglect and trust-account issues)
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Heitzler, 291 N.E.2d 477 (1972) (restitution considerations and disciplinary standards)
- Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Reid, 708 N.E.2d 193 (1999) (restitution and sanctions framework)