Disciplinary Counsel v. Bucio.
152 Ohio St. 3d 126
| Ohio | 2017Background
- Christopher R. Bucio, Ohio lawyer admitted 2003, was interim-suspended after a 2016 felony conviction for unauthorized use of a client’s property; disciplinary proceedings followed.
- Client Linda Heuker, arrested in 2010, transferred a 22‑acre farm to Bucio as payment (purported retainer); Bucio failed to comply with disclosure and independent‑counsel protections for business transactions with clients.
- The law firm sold the farmland, netted $127,767.02, and Bucio retained the proceeds without informing Heuker; she later learned she received no sale‑proceeds accounting.
- Bucio asserted the land was a flat fee; he later acknowledged he performed only ~40 hours of work (≈$9,000 at $225/hr), and the retained proceeds were excessive.
- Criminal investigation led to Bucio’s guilty plea, a sentence of five years community control and $5,000 fine; Bucio later paid Heuker $97,767.02 restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bucio violated professional conduct rules by entering into a business transaction with a client without required protections | Disciplinary Counsel: Bucio failed to disclose terms, advise independent counsel, or obtain informed consent — violating Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(a) | Bucio stipulated to misconduct facts (no contested defense on rule violations) | Court adopted stipulations: violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(a) |
| Whether retention of sale proceeds constituted excessive fee/misappropriation | Counsel: Retaining proceeds and failing to account was a clearly excessive fee and tantamount to misappropriation (Prof.Cond.R. 1.5; 8.4(b)) | Bucio made restitution and had no prior discipline; mitigation reduces sanction severity | Court found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5 and 8.4(b); conduct equated to misappropriation |
| Failure to communicate and cooperate with client regarding sale proceeds | Counsel: Bucio failed to inform Heuker of sale/price and did not respond to inquiries, violating communication rules (Prof.Cond.R. 1.4) | Bucio’s later restitution and eventual cooperation mitigate culpability | Court held Bucio violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3) and (4) |
| Appropriate sanction for misappropriation-equivalent misconduct | Counsel: Presumptive sanction is disbarment for misappropriation, but mitigation may support lesser sanction | Bucio: mitigation (no prior discipline, restitution, criminal sanctions, eventual acceptance) supports suspension rather than disbarment | Court imposed indefinite suspension (no credit for interim felony suspension) and barred reinstatement petition until completion or release from community control |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Peterson, 984 N.E.2d 1035 (Ohio 2012) (indefinite suspension where attorney entered business transaction with client, stole funds, but mitigation—restitution, lack of prior discipline—supported suspension over disbarment)
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Harris, 772 N.E.2d 621 (Ohio 2002) (conversion of client funds typically warrants disbarment, but strong mitigation may justify indefinite suspension)
- Heuker v. Roberts, Kelly & Bucio, L.L.P., 998 N.E.2d 827 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013) (malpractice action against Bucio time‑barred on one‑year limitations grounds)