[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as
Disciplinary Counsel v. Calabrese, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2073.]

NOTICE
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio,
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be
made before the opinion is published.

SLIP OPINION NO. 2015-OHIO-2073
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. CALABRESE.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Calabrese, Slip Opinion
No. 2015-Ohio-2073.]
Attorney misconduct—Felony convictions—Engaging in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation—Engaging in conduct that
is prejudicial to the administration of justice—Permanent disbarment.
(No. 2014-1390—Submitted January 14, 2015—Decided June 3, 2015.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2013-070.
_______________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} Respondent, Anthony Orlando Calabrese III, formerly of Cleveland,
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0068535, was admitted to the practice of law in
Ohio in 1997. On July 23, 2013, we suspended his license to practice on an
interim basis pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4) (now Gov.Bar R. V(18)(A)(4))

 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

upon receiving notice that he had been convicted of a felony. In re Calabrese,
136 Ohio St.3d 1226, 2013-Ohio-3210, 991 N.E.2d 1149.
{¶ 2} On March 14, 2014, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed an amended
three-count complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline.1 That complaint charged Calabrese with multiple violations of the
Disciplinary Rules of the former Code of Professional Responsibility and the
current Rules of Professional Conduct for conduct that resulted in his conviction
of 18 federal felony counts involving conspiracy, mail fraud, and bribery, and
nine state felony counts involving engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, theft,
and bribery.2
{¶ 3} The parties submitted agreed stipulations of fact and misconduct and
aggravating and mitigating factors, as well as 14 stipulated exhibits.

After

hearing Calabrese’s testimony, a panel of the board found that relator had proved
each of the alleged violations by clear and convincing evidence and recommended
that Calabrese be permanently disbarred for his misconduct. The board adopted
the panel’s report in its entirety.
{¶ 4} Calabrese objects to the board’s characterization of certain facts and
urges this court to reject the board’s recommendation of permanent disbarment in
favor of an indefinite suspension from the practice of law.

We overrule

Calabrese’s objections and agree with the board that the facts of this case warrant
permanent disbarment.
1

Effective January 1, 2015, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline was
renamed the Board of Professional Conduct. See Gov.Bar R. V(1)(A), 140 Ohio St.3d CII.
2

Relator charged Calabrese with misconduct under applicable rules for acts occurring before and
after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which supersede
the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility. When both the former and
current rules are cited for the same act, however, we consider the allegations to comprise a single
ethical violation. Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman, 119 Ohio St.3d 330, 2008-Ohio-3836, 894
N.E.2d 31, ¶ 1, fn. 1.

2

 January Term, 2015

Findings of Fact and Misconduct
Count One—Federal Convictions
{¶ 5} The parties stipulated and the board found that on June 7, 2012, a
federal grand jury handed down a 20-count superseding indictment against
Calabrese, alleging that he had engaged in various acts of fraud, bribery, and
conspiracy from approximately 2001 to 2009. United States v. Calabrese, N.D.
Ohio case No. 1:11CR437. On or about January 14, 2013, Calabrese pleaded
guilty to the following counts as alleged in the indictment:
Count

Crime

1

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (“RICO”) violation, 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)

2, 11, 16

Conspiracy to commit bribery concerning
programs receiving federal funds, 18 U.S.C. 371

3, 12, 13

Bribery concerning programs receiving
federal funds, 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(2)

4, 14, 17

Hobbs Act conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. 1951

5, 6, 18, 19 Conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honestservices mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1349
6

Conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honestservices mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1349

7, 8, 9, 15

Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1341

{¶ 6} In return for Calabrese’s guilty plea, the United States Attorney’s
Office dismissed Counts 10 and 20 of the superseding indictment (tampering with
a witness, victim, or informant, 18 U.S.C. 1512).
{¶ 7} On June 20, 2013, Judge Sara Lioi of the United States District
Court, Northern District of Ohio, sentenced Calabrese to 108 months in prison
and three years of supervised release. Judge Lioi also ordered Calabrese to pay

3

 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

$132,041.93 in restitution. He agreed to a payment plan and has made nominal
payments to date from the money he earns while working in prison. As part of
the plea, Calabrese forfeited $74,450 as a result of his racketeering activities
described in Count 1 of the superseding indictment and attachment A to his plea
agreement.
{¶ 8} With respect to the charges to which he pleaded guilty, Calabrese
admits the facts contained in the superseding indictment, his plea agreement, and
attachment A to his plea agreement. The board, therefore, concluded that relator
had proved the following violations by clear and convincing evidence: DR 1102(A)(3) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in illegal
conduct that involves moral turpitude or that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s
honesty or trustworthiness); DR 1-102(A)(4) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (both
prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit, or misrepresentation); DR 5-101(A)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from
accepting employment if the lawyer’s exercise of professional judgment on behalf
of the client will be or reasonably may be affected by the lawyer’s own financial,
business, property, or personal interests unless the client consents after full
disclosure) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(a)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from accepting or
continuing employment if the representation of the client will be directly adverse
to another current client); and DR 1-102(A)(5) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) (both
prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the
administration of justice). The board also found that Calabrese’s conduct in each
of the three counts satisfies the standard of egregiousness required to support a
finding of a violation of DR 1-102(A)(6) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (both
prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the
lawyer’s fitness to practice law). See Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 137 Ohio
St.3d 35, 2013-Ohio-3998, 997 N.E.2d 500, ¶ 21. We adopt the board’s findings
and conclusions with respect to Count One of disciplinary counsel’s complaint.

4

 January Term, 2015

Count Two—Convictions Related to the June 16, 2013
Cuyahoga County Indictment
{¶ 9} On June 16, 2013, a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury handed down a
six-count indictment against Calabrese that contained the following state charges
for substantially the same conduct that was alleged in the federal indictment:
Count Crime
1

Engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, a first-degree
felony, R.C. 2923.32(A)(1)

2

Conspiracy, a second-degree felony, R.C. 2923.01(A)(1)

3

Conspiracy, a second-degree felony, R.C. 2923.01(A)(2)

4

Theft, a fourth-degree felony, R.C. 2913.02(A)(3)

5

Bribery, a third-degree felony, R.C. 2921.02(C)

6

Bribery, a third-degree felony, R.C. 2921.02(A)

State v. Calabrese, case No. CR-13-576241.
{¶ 10} Calabrese pleaded guilty to Counts 1, 4, 5, and 6 of the indictment
on November 1, 2013, and he admits the facts alleged in those counts. The
prosecutor dismissed Counts 2 and 3.

Judge Patricia Cosgrove sentenced

Calabrese to four years and six months in prison—four years for Count 1, three
years for Counts 5 and 6, to be served concurrently with each other and with the
sentence imposed for Count 1, and six months for Count 4, to be served
consecutively to the sentence imposed for Count 1, all to run concurrently with
his federal sentence. Judge Cosgrove also imposed a $25,000 fine and five years
of postrelease control.
{¶ 11} Consistent with the parties’ stipulations, the board concluded that
Calabrese’s conduct from 2003 through 2008 with respect to these criminal

5

 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

convictions, violated DR 1-102(A)(3), (5), and (6). We adopt the board’s findings
and conclusions with respect to Count Two of disciplinary counsel’s complaint.
Count Three—Convictions Related to the January 25, 2013
Cuyahoga County Indictment
{¶ 12} On or about January 25, 2013, a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury
issued a nine-count indictment against Calabrese and three codefendants (Thomas
Castro, attorney Marc Doumbas, and attorney G. Timothy Marshall). The charges
arose out of a bribery scheme to protect Castro, who Calabrese represented in
business matters and Doumbas represented in criminal matters, from going to
prison. State v. Calabrese, case No. CR-13-571014. The indictment contained
the following charges:
Count

Crime

1

Engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, a first-degree
felony, R.C. 2923.32(A)(1) (all four defendants)

2

Conspiracy, a second-degree felony, R.C. 2923.01(A)(1)
(all four defendants)

3

Conspiracy, a second-degree felony, R.C. 2923.01(A)(2)
(all four defendants)

4

Bribery, a third-degree felony, R.C. 2921.02(C)
(Castro, Doumbas, & Marshall)

5

Bribery, a third-degree felony, R.C. 2921.02(C)
(Marshall & Doumbas)

6, 7, 9

Bribery, a third-degree felony, R.C. 2921.02(C)
(Castro & Calabrese)

8

Bribery, a third-degree felony, R.C. 2921.02(C)
(Castro, Calabrese, and Doumbas)

6

 January Term, 2015

{¶ 13} Calabrese pleaded guilty to Counts 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the
indictment on November 1, 2013, and admits the facts alleged with respect to
those counts. And as part of the plea agreement, the prosecutor dismissed Counts
2 and 3. Counts 4 and 5 did not pertain to Calabrese. Judge Patricia Cosgrove
sentenced Calabrese to four years of imprisonment for Count 1 and three years for
each of Counts 6, 7, 8, and 9, all to run concurrently with each other and with
both his federal sentence and his sentence in case No. CR-13-576241. Judge
Cosgrove also imposed five years of postrelease control.
{¶ 14} The parties stipulate and the board concluded that Calabrese’s
conduct with respect to this count of disciplinary counsel’s complaint, all of
which occurred in 2012, violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b), (d), and (h). We adopt the
board’s findings and conclusions with respect to Count Three of disciplinary
counsel’s complaint.
Sanction
{¶ 15} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the
sanctions imposed in similar cases. Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio
St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.

In making a final

determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).3
{¶ 16} The parties stipulated that the relevant aggravating factors are that
Calabrese acted with a dishonest or selfish motive, engaged in a pattern of
misconduct, and committed multiple offenses, and that his conduct resulted in
harm to the public at large. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), (d), and (h).
They also stipulated that the following mitigating factors are present—the absence

3

Effective January 1, 2015, the aggravating and mitigating factors previously set forth in BCGD
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) and (2) are codified in Gov.Bar R. V(13). 140 Ohio St.3d CXXIV.

7

 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

of prior discipline, Calabrese’s timely good-faith effort to make restitution, his
full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board and cooperative attitude toward
the proceedings, positive character evidence, and the imposition of criminal
sanctions. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), (d), (e), and (f).
{¶ 17} The board summarized Calabrese’s conduct, stating:

It is difficult to imagine a case more disappointing and
damaging to the public and to our profession. Respondent, just 41
years old, has engaged in a decade-long, deleterious, and corrupt
pattern of misconduct involving the serious crimes of moral
turpitude, culminating in his conviction in three separate criminal
cases of 27 felony counts, the imposition of a nine-year prison
term, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in restitution, fines, and
forfeitures.

{¶ 18} Although it recognized that the primary purpose of discipline is to
protect the public, and not to punish the offender, the board noted that there are
times when to maintain public confidence in the legal profession and preserve the
integrity of the profession, the imposition of the ultimate disciplinary sanction—
permanent disbarment—is appropriate. Comparing Calabrese’s conduct to that of
two other attorneys who were disbarred by this court, the board concluded that
permanent disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this case.
{¶ 19} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Phillips, 108 Ohio St.3d 331, 2006Ohio-1064, 843 N.E.2d 775, ¶ 4, we disbarred Aaron Phillips, an assistant county
prosecutor who had accepted a $2,000 bribe from a criminal defendant and
promised to “fix” another defendant’s case in return for cash. He was convicted
of several felony charges including bribery, theft in office, attempted obstruction
of justice, and attempted tampering with evidence and was sentenced to 30

8

 January Term, 2015

months in prison.

He served six months in prison before receiving judicial

release, and he completed an in-patient drug-treatment program.
{¶ 20} Although we recognized that there were significant mitigating
factors in that case, including Phillips’s diagnosed chemical dependency that
contributed to his conduct, we balanced those factors against the seriousness of
his rule violations and concluded that his conduct had been “too harmful to the
public and to the administration of justice for him to remain a member of the legal
profession in Ohio.” Id. at ¶ 13-15.
{¶ 21} The board in this case noted that while Phillips’s misconduct was
serious and harmful to our system of justice, it consisted of two isolated incidents.
In contrast, the board found that Calabrese “methodically and meticulously built
politically and morally corrupt enterprises using bribes, kickbacks, shell
companies, and cryptic code, all in an effort to line his own pockets and those of
his cronies.”

While acknowledging that “most of his misconduct involved

cheating the unsuspecting taxpayers in Cuyahoga County, often at the expense of
his own clients,” the board also found that Calabrese “attempted to bribe a rape
victim * * * by offering her, through her lawyer, $90,000 to provide a favorable
statement on behalf of her assailant, Thomas Castro, who was also [Calabrese’s]
client.”

Finding that Calabrese’s conduct with respect to the rape victim

“occurred after the federal government had indicted [him] and while he was under
federal surveillance,” the board concluded that “there can be no doubt that [he] is
unfit to practice in a profession grounded upon integrity.”
{¶ 22} Moreover, the board noted that in Disciplinary Counsel v. Stern,
106 Ohio St.3d 266, 2005-Ohio-4804, 834 N.E.2d 351, we permanently disbarred
an attorney who had been convicted of several crimes, including possession of
heroin with intent to distribute, arranging to have his rental property destroyed by
fire to collect the insurance proceeds, and forging a copayee’s signature on
insurance checks and retaining the proceeds for himself. There, we stated:

9

 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

A lawyer who engages in the kind of criminal conduct
committed by respondent violates the duty to maintain personal
honesty and integrity, which is one of the most basic professional
obligations owed by lawyers to the public.

Respondent’s

misconduct was harmful to the legal profession, which is and
ought to be a high calling dedicated to the service of clients and the
public good. “[P]ermanent disbarment is an appropriate sanction
for conduct that violates DR 1-102 and results in a felony
conviction.”

Id. at ¶ 8, quoting Disciplinary Counsel v. Gallagher, 82 Ohio St.3d 51, 52, 693
N.E.2d 1078 (1998).
{¶ 23} Calabrese objects to the board’s findings and recommendation. He
expresses concern that the panel did not receive his trial and sanction briefs and
did not consider the argument or cases cited therein.

The record, however,

reflects that the panel did receive both filings, though it did not adopt the
arguments propounded in them as Calabrese had hoped.
{¶ 24} Next, Calabrese challenges the board’s findings that he had been
under federal surveillance, that his client had committed a rape, and that by
attempting to bribe the victim, he had shown his approval of his client’s actions.
He claims that these findings are outrageous, inflammatory, irresponsible,
inaccurate, and unsupported by the record. But Calabrese stipulated to the facts
of the indictment in case No. 13-CR-571014, which referred to Castro’s case as a
“rape case” and stated, “Calabrese Met with Victim #2’s attorney, referred to as
‘UA2,’ in a car while Calabrese was fearful of federal surveillance and
wiretapping.” And he did not object when relator referred to the woman he

10

 January Term, 2015

sought to bribe as a rape victim. Therefore, we do not find that the board has
mischaracterized the facts.
{¶ 25} In his final objection, Calabrese urges us to consider the fact that he
was not a public official when he committed his misconduct, combined with the
mitigating factors found by the board, and impose an indefinite suspension for his
misconduct.

Given the length, breadth, and seriousness of Calabrese’s

misconduct, however, we agree with the board that permanent disbarment is the
appropriate sanction in this case.
{¶ 26} Accordingly, Anthony Orlando Calabrese III is permanently
disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to Calabrese.
Judgment accordingly.
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY,
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur.
_________________________
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, Joseph M. Caligiuri, Chief Assistant
Disciplinary Counsel, and Karen H. Osmond, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for
relator.
Anthony Orlando Calabrese III, pro se.
_________________________

11