2020 Ohio 603
Ohio2020Background
- Anthony M. Piazza, an Ohio lawyer admitted in 1977, was investigated after misdemeanor arrests for assault/disorderly conduct and multiple violations of a temporary protection order and court-ordered probation. He twice pleaded no contest to protection-order violations and admitted repeated cocaine use while on probation.
- Piazza repeatedly lied to police and advised the victim not to appear at trial; he tested positive for cocaine several times and entered outpatient treatment and continuing-care programs during the disciplinary process.
- Relator separately investigated Piazza’s client trust account after an overdraft; prior investigations occurred in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016, with Piazza previously assuring compliance but continuing to commit violations.
- Trust-account misconduct included commingling personal and client funds, failing to keep individual/client ledgers or monthly reconciliations, failing to deposit client funds, and misappropriating client funds on at least two occasions.
- Piazza stipulated to the charged violations. The Board of Professional Conduct found multiple breaches of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15, 3.4(c), 8.4(c), and 8.4(h), and recommended a two-year suspension with the second year stayed on conditions; the Supreme Court accepted the recommendation.
Issues
| Issue | Disciplinary Counsel's Argument | Piazza's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Violations of professional rules based on protection-order breaches and probation noncompliance | Piazza’s repeated contact with the victim, probation violations, and dishonesty violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.4(c) and 8.4(h) | Piazza stipulated to the facts; offered mitigation (addiction treatment, cooperation, no prior discipline) | Court accepted board finding of violations and that conduct adversely reflected on fitness to practice |
| Dishonesty (lying to police, advising victim not to appear) | Those acts constituted deceit and violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) | Stipulated; mitigation asserted | Court found violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) as stipulated |
| Trust-account mismanagement and misappropriation | Repeated failures to follow Prof.Cond.R. 1.15 (commingling, no ledgers, no reconciliations, failing to deposit client funds) and misappropriation of client funds (violating 8.4(c)) | Stipulated but pointed to prior assurances and attempted corrective steps; claimed mitigation | Court agreed with board that Piazza violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15 provisions and misappropriated client funds |
| Appropriate sanction | Public protection and precedent require suspension given prolonged, knowing violations and misappropriation | Sought leniency based on mitigation (no prior discipline, cooperation, addiction treatment) | Court imposed two-year suspension with second year stayed on conditions (OLAP assessment within 60 days; no further misconduct; reinstatement conditioned on OLAP compliance and health-care professional opinion); costs taxed |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 137 Ohio St.3d 35 (2013-Ohio-3998) (rules can be violated where conduct involves dishonesty or adversely reflects on fitness to practice)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Dockry, 133 Ohio St.3d 527 (2012-Ohio-5014) (examples of lesser sanctions for trust-account mismanagement without knowing misuse)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Alexander, 133 Ohio St.3d 232 (2012-Ohio-4575) (one-year suspension for prolonged trust-account misuse and recordkeeping failures)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Joltin, 147 Ohio St.3d 490 (2016-Ohio-8168) (two-year suspension with second year stayed where attorney repeatedly commingled, misappropriated client funds, and committed other misconduct)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Camboni, 145 Ohio St.3d 395 (2016-Ohio-653) (stayed one-year suspension where attorney violated court order and was convicted of misdemeanors)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Edwards, 134 Ohio St.3d 271 (2012-Ohio-5643) (discipline’s primary purpose is public protection)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Schuman, 152 Ohio St.3d 47 (2017-Ohio-8800) (discipline also deters similar misconduct by the bar)