Disciplinary Counsel v. Calabrese
143 Ohio St. 3d 229
| Ohio | 2015Background
- Anthony O. Calabrese III, an Ohio attorney admitted in 1997, was interim-suspended in 2013 after federal felony convictions.
- Relator (disciplinary counsel) filed an amended three-count complaint alleging federal and state fraud, bribery, racketeering, and related misconduct; parties stipulated to facts, misconduct, and aggravating/mitigating factors.
- Calabrese pleaded guilty in federal court to multiple counts (conspiracy, mail fraud, bribery) and was sentenced to 108 months, ordered to pay restitution and forfeitures.
- He pleaded guilty in two separate Cuyahoga County indictments to state felonies (pattern of corrupt activity, theft, bribery), receiving concurrent state sentences and fines to run with his federal term.
- The Board panel found clear-and-convincing proof of multiple violations of the Code/Rules (including dishonesty, conduct prejudicial to administration of justice, conflicts, and conduct reflecting unfitness) and recommended permanent disbarment.
- Calabrese objected to some factual characterizations and urged indefinite suspension instead; the Ohio Supreme Court adopted the board’s findings and ordered permanent disbarment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether disciplinary violations were proved | Disciplinary counsel: stipulated facts and guilty pleas prove multiple ethics violations under former Code and Rules of Professional Conduct | Calabrese: contested some characterizations but largely stipulated; argued mitigation and other facts lessen severity | Court: Adopted board findings — violations proved by clear and convincing evidence |
| Appropriate sanction (disbarment v. suspension) | Disciplinary counsel: pattern of extensive, decade-long corrupt conduct warrants permanent disbarment to protect public and profession | Calabrese: urged indefinite suspension, cited mitigating factors and that he was not a public official at time of misconduct | Court: Permanent disbarment appropriate given seriousness, extent, and harm of misconduct |
| Weight of aggravating/mitigating factors | Aggravation: dishonest/selfish motive, pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, public harm | Mitigation: no prior discipline, restitution efforts, cooperation, character evidence, criminal sanctions | Court: Acknowledged mitigation but found aggravating facts and harm outweigh them; disbarment warranted |
| Specific factual disputes (federal surveillance, rape victim characterization, panel’s consideration of briefs) | Disciplinary counsel: relied on stipulated indictments and plea materials as record | Calabrese: claimed mischaracterizations and procedural omission (panel didn’t consider briefs) | Court: Found record supported board’s characterizations; panel did receive briefs; objections overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 137 Ohio St.3d 35 (2013) (standard for finding conduct that reflects adversely on fitness to practice)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Phillips, 108 Ohio St.3d 331 (2006) (disbarment appropriate for attorneys convicted of bribery and related felonies despite mitigating factors)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Stern, 106 Ohio St.3d 266 (2005) (permanent disbarment for felony convictions that undermine personal honesty and integrity)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Gallagher, 82 Ohio St.3d 51 (1998) (permanent disbarment is appropriate for conduct violating DR 1-102 resulting in felony conviction)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman, 119 Ohio St.3d 330 (2008) (explaining treatment of violations under both former Code and Rules of Professional Conduct)