Disciplinary Counsel v. Gallo, 131 Ohio St. 3d 309

Gallo, a junior Ohio attorney admitted in 2008, was charged in 2009 with professional misconduct for affidavits and a motion accusing Judge Lucci of misconduct.
The Board found Gallo recklessly made false statements impugning a judge’s integrity and recommended a public reprimand.
Gallo argued his inexperience caused an innocent misidentification of the man outside the judge’s suite and that he had a good-faith basis for the allegations.
Video evidence later showed the person was the bailiff, not Judge Lucci, leading Gallo to withdraw the affidavit.
The board concluded Gallo violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.2(a) and 8.4(d), and recommended a public reprimand, with other alleged violations dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gallo violated ethics rules by making false statements about a judge	Relator asserts Gallo recklessly made false statements	Gallo contends misidentification was in good faith and reasonable	Yes, violations found; public reprimand approved
Whether 8.4(c) and 8.4(h) were supported	Relator seeks sanction for dishonesty and fitness concerns	Gallo argues evidence insufficient for those violations	No, those violations dismissed
What sanction is appropriate	Relator seeks suspension (six months)	Gallo seeks dismissal or public reprimand	Public reprimand appropriate

Gardner, Disciplinary Counsel v. Gardner, 99 Ohio St.3d 416 (2003-Ohio-4048) (establishes objective standard for statements about judges; seeking serious misconduct must have factual basis)
Broeren, Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007-Ohio-5251) (consideration of aggravating/mitigating factors in sanctions)
Mullaney, Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Mullaney, 119 Ohio St.3d 412 (2008-Ohio-4541) (recent admission as mitigating factor in misconduct)
Buttacavoli, Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (six-month suspension as reference point for misconduct)