Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Brucato - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

1 Cleveland Bar Association v. Brucato.
2 [Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Brucato (1997), _____Ohio St.3d_____.]
3 Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Permanent disbarment -- Failing to
4
withdraw from employment after being discharged by client --
5
Neglecting an entrusted legal matter -- Failing to carry out
6
contract for professional services -- Neglecting or refusing to
7
assist in grievance investigation -- Conviction of conspiracy to
8
launder money.
9
(No. 96-2431 -- Submitted December 11, 1996 -- Decided March 26,
10 1997.)
11 On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances
12 and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-80.
13
On October 10, 1995 the Cleveland Bar Association, relator, charged
14 Blaise Brucato of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0024797,
15 respondent, with violations of DR 2-110(B)(4) (failing to withdraw from
16 employment after being discharged by a client), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an
17 entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract for
18 professional services), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (neglecting or refusing to
19 assist in a grievance investigation). The disciplinary charges were based on
20 a complaint by Victoria L. DiFranco, stating that after respondent undertook

1 to represent her in her capacity as guardian for her daughter in an insurance
2 matter in January 1992, respondent failed to do any work, failed to respond
3 to DiFranco's inquires about the matter, failed to respond to the insurance
4 company, and failed to return documents upon request after DiFranco
5 discharged him. The alleged violation of the Government of the Bar rule
6 was included because, after being advised of DiFranco's complaint,
7 respondent did not reply to three written inquiries from relator's Certified
8 Grievance Committee and did not respond to telephone calls from the
9 committee's investigator.
10
On February 15, 1996, respondent entered into a "Plea Agreement"
11 with the local United States Attorney and agreed to plead guilty to the
12 charge of conspiracy to launder money during the period between March
13 and November 1990, in violation of Sections 371 and 1956, Title 18, U.S.
14 Code. The agreement recited that the government could prove that
15 respondent introduced a person whom he believed to be a drug dealer to a
16 branch manager of a bank for the purpose of enabling the person to conduct
17 financial transactions to avoid filing Currency Transaction Reports. As a
18 part of the plea agreement, respondent promised that "prior to his sentencing

2

1 in this matter he must either voluntarily surrender his license [to practice
2 law] or have initiated disciplinary proceedings." Accordingly, counsel for
3 respondent contacted the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
4 Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board") on March 18, 1996 requesting
5 the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. On July 5, 1996, relator amended
6 its pending complaint to add a count that respondent had violated DR 1-
7 102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude) and 1-
8 102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
9 misrepresentation).
10
After a September 1996 hearing, a panel of the board recommended
11 that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. The
12 board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel.
13
______________________________________
14
Robert J. Hanna and Charles B. Donahue II, for relator.
15
Richard G. Lillie, for respondent.
16
______________________________________
17
Per Curiam. In Disciplinary Counsel v. Williams (1993), 66 Ohio
18 St.3d 71, 73, 609 N.E.2d 149, an attorney pled guilty to conspiracy to

3

1 launder profits from illegal drug sales. In Williams, we said that
2 "[d]isbarment is the only appropriate sanction," even though the
3 government stipulated that the defendant was the "least culpable participant
4 in the scheme [and] rendered `substantial, timely, truthful and complete'
5 cooperation with the government and accepted responsibility for his crime."
6 Id. at 73, 609 N.E.2d at 150.
7
In this case, respondent's participation was close to if not greater than
8 the level of the attorney's participation in Williams. Here, respondent was
9 the one who arranged for the initial contact between the parties involved in
10 the money-laundering scheme.
11
In addition, respondent not only failed to provide adequate
12 representation to his client, DiFranco, but he also declined to participate in
13 the investigatory process when informed of the charges against him.
14
Respondent has pleaded guilty to a felony, violated the Disciplinary
15 Rules with respect to his duty to a client, and has failed to cooperate with a
16 disciplinary investigation thereby violating the Rules for the Government of
17 the Bar. For these cumulative infractions the appropriate sanction is

4

1 disbarment, and respondent is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in
2 Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.
3

Judgment accordingly.
4
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG
5 STRATTON, JJ., concur.
6
F.E. SWEENEY, J., dissents and would indefinitely suspend
7 respondent.
8

5