The Supreme Court of Ohio today issued a fully stayed six-month suspension to the former city of Campbell law director for professional misconduct related to his private practice.

In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court found that Brian J. Macala committed three ethics violations when he forged the signatures of family members he represented in a complex estate case in probate court. The Court noted that Macala also held a part-time elected position and none of his misconduct related to his official duties.

Macala admitted to his mistakes and urged the Court to adopt a Board of Professional Conduct recommendation that he be publicly reprimanded. The Mahoning County Bar Association, which filed the complaint against Macala in 2023, suggested that Macala receive a one-year, fully stayed suspension. The Court found Macala’s “misguided effort to obtain additional time to provide a complete accounting of the estate’s assets to the probate court” warranted a greater sanction than
Macala sought, but less than what the bar association proposed.

Justices Patrick F. Fischer, Michael P. Donnelly, and Melody Stewart joined the opinion. First District Court of Appeals Judge Ginger Bock, sitting for Justice Jennifer Brunner, also joined the opinion.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices R. Patrick DeWine and Joseph T. Deters concurred in part and dissented in part. Chief Justice Kennedy stated that she would have imposed a one-year, fully stayed suspension. Justices DeWine and Deters would have issued a public reprimand.

Lawyer Takes on Complex Estate Case
Following the death of her sister-in-law, Sandra Billec hired Macala in 2018 to handle the estate of Marie E. Harris. Marie’s husband, Ronald Harris, was the sole heir to the estate. Macala prepared a will for Ronald Harris, naming his four nephews as equal beneficiaries to the estate. Ronald Harris died in 2019.

Over a nearly two-year period, Macala did substantial work to identify the assets of the couple’s estates. Macala applied to the Mahoning County Probate Court to open the estates and appoint Billec to oversee them. In April 2020, the probate court began to send notices to Macala and Billec informing them that required filings of the estate inventories were overdue. The court issued an order in September 2020 directing Macala and Billec to appear in court and file the delinquent inventories. After receiving a continuance, the inventories were filed in November 2020.

Probate Court Noted Significant Delay
While the inventories were filed, other work on closing the estates had not been completed. The probate court sent several postcards to Billec and Macala in 2020 and 2021, informing them that status reports and account updates were delinquent. In March 2022, the court set a hearing on the status of the reports. The hearing was continued to late May 2022.

Under probate court rules, Macala was required to satisfactorily explain why the information wasn’t filed on time.

Three days before the hearing, Macala filed waivers of partial accounts for both estates with the court. Under Ohio law, a partial account must be reported to the court when a final account of the distribution of an estate isn’t completed within a certain amount of time. The heirs and executors of estates can seek to waive the partial account report requirement.

For the Marie Harris estate, Macala forged Billec’s signature on the waiver of partial account document without her knowledge or authorization. For the Ronald Harris estate, Macala forged Billec’s signature as the executor and the names of the four nephews without the knowledge or signature of any of them. After receiving the signed documents, the magistrate overseeing the case canceled the hearing.

Within a few weeks of the filings, Billec discovered the forgeries and sent a letter to Macala terminating his services. Macala called Billec to apologize and said he understood why she fired him. He cooperated with Billec in transitioning the estates to another attorney. There was no indication that his conduct impacted the outcome of the administration of the estates or that the interests of the estates or any of the beneficiaries were harmed. Macala did not receive any fee for his services.

Chad Billec, one of the four nephews, filed a grievance with the bar association. In response, Macala admitted he signed the documents without the knowledge or consent of any of the family members.

The Board of Professional Conduct found Macala violated the rule that required he keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of their case and that he made a false statement to the probate court and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

The bar association objected to the board’s recommendation that Macala be publicly reprimanded. The objection triggered an oral argument before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Considers Appropriate Sanction
The bar association maintained that the presumed sanction for a lawyer engaging in dishonest conduct is an actual suspension from the practice of law. However, in light of the circumstances, the bar association argued that a step down to a stayed suspension was appropriate.

When considering the sanction in a disciplinary case, the Court considers aggravating circumstances that could increase the penalty and mitigating factors that could lead to a lesser sanction. The Court found that Macala acted with a dishonest motive and committed multiple offenses. But it also determined that he had a clean disciplinary record, cooperated with the disciplinary investigation, and presented 34 letters from judges, attorneys, and others confirming his good character and reputation.

The Court reviewed several past disciplinary cases involving lawyers who have forged signatures on court documents, and considered Macala’s conduct compared to others. At his board hearing, Macala testified that prior to the May 2022 hearing, he thought he had identified all the assets that needed to be reported to the court and distributed through the estates. But then a relative of the deceased couple discovered a life insurance policy that might have to be accounted for in the estate assets.

When Macala informed the magistrate of the matter, the magistrate directed him to file for the waiver of the partial account within seven days. Macala said he took the case file from the court back to his office and forgot about it until the day before the waivers were due. He said he panicked and signed the names without the family members’ authorization.

“Although he was found to have acted with a dishonest or selfish motive, the only benefit that he received from his actions was that he avoided having to appear in court to explain why he had not complied with the court’s deadline for filing the partial accounts,” the opinion stated.

The Court noted Macala estimated he spent between 75 and 100 hours attempting to locate all of the estate assets but did not charge or collect a fee from the family. The Court concluded that while Macala’s actions did not affect the outcome of the case or harm the family, “his conduct fell below the standards we have set for Ohio attorneys,” and a stayed suspension was warranted.

The Court stated that if Macala commits any further misconduct, the stay will be lifted, and he must serve the suspension. The Court also ordered him to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.

2023-1561. Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Macala, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-3158.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.