Youngstown Attorney Indefinitely Suspended for Insurance Fraud

The Supreme Court of Ohio today indefinitely suspended a Youngstown lawyer who was convicted of insurance fraud for falsely inflating $859,464 worth of client medical bills when submitting claims.

Anthony Fusco has been under an interim suspension since September 2022 following his conviction for third-degree felony insurance fraud. A Supreme Court majority did not grant him any credit for time served under the interim suspension.

Writing for the Court majority, Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy stated that credit for time served should not be based solely on the total amount of time an attorney will be unable to practice law, but rather on the totality of the circumstances. Noting that Fusco's criminal activity spanned more than two and a half years and that he personally profited from the misconduct, the Court found that not granting him any time-served credit was appropriate.

Justices Patrick F. Fischer, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined the chief justice's opinion. Tenth District Court of Appeals Judge David J. Leland, sitting for Justice Jennifer Brunner, also joined the opinion.

In a separate opinion, Justice R. Patrick DeWine wrote that he would grant Fusco one year of credit for time served. By not granting any credit, Fusco will be suspended for more than five years before he is eligible to apply for reinstatement, Justice DeWine noted. The sanction is disproportionate to suspensions imposed on attorneys who committed similar misconduct, he stated.

Justice Joseph T. Deters joined Justice DeWine's opinion.

Lawyer Sought Bonuses at Firm

Three weeks after being admitted to practice law, Fusco started working at a personal injury law firm in December 2015. He was paid a $45,000 annual salary and received bonuses based on a percentage of the legal fees earned over the course of the year. The more fees he earned for the firm, the greater percentage of the fees he received in bonuses.

Fusco helped prepare demand packages to settle lawsuits , each one consisting of a client's medical bills and other documents concerning medical treatment. The packages were submitted to insurance companies. At any given time, Fusco was responsible for 400 to 600 clients.

From March 2017 to October 2019, Fusco submitted a total of $859,464 in falsely inflated medical bills in 399 cases. Those were sent to 62 insurance and third-party claims administrators. The fraudulent bills led to larger settlements for his clients, and since his bonuses were based on the percentage of fees earned, his $118,046 in bonuses was increased by the inflated bills.

An insurer noticed what appeared to be an inflated bill and contacted the law firm where Fusco worked. When questioned by the senior partners at the firm, Fusco initially lied to them about what occurred. After admitting to inflating one bill and denying he inflated others, he resigned in October 2019.

The Ohio Department of Insurance investigated Fusco. He was indicted for felony telecommunications fraud and insurance fraud. He pleaded guilty to insurance fraud, and the other charge was dismissed . He was sentenced to 18 months in prison.

Fusco served about 40 days in prison before a judge granted judicial release and placed him on probation.

Professional Misconduct Violations Charged

In March 2024, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint with the Board of Professional Conduct, charging Fusco with three ethics violations related to his felony conviction. The parties stipulated, and the board agreed, that Fusco committed an illegal act that reflects adversely on his honesty and trustworthiness and on his fitness to practice law. The board also decided that he engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

The parties suggested that the board recommend that Fusco be suspended for two years. The board found a two-year suspension to be too harsh and instead recommended to the Court that Fusco be suspended for one year with no credit for time served under the interim suspension that started in September 2022.

Supreme Court Considered Sanction

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 board found that Fusco acted with a dishonest or selfish motive, engaged in a pattern of misconduct, and committed multiple offenses. The board also found Fusco had a clean disciplinary record, cooperated during the disciplinary proceedings, and received other penalties for his actions, namely his criminal sentence.

Fusco did not establish that a disorder contributed to his misconduct, but he testified at his disciplinary hearing that around 2016, he started to misuse Adderall prescribed to him. He stated that he would take the drug and sometimes stay awake for more than 50 hours, with maybe an hour of sleep. He claimed that by 2018, he was consumed with work and how many cases he could settle. In April 2024, he entered into a contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program and began mental health treatment.

In recommending a one-year suspension with no credit for time served, the board noted two other cases in which attorneys committed theft through the collection of legal fees and committed bank fraud.

Chief Justice Kennedy wrote that Fusco's misconduct was more egregious than that of the attorneys cited by the board and instead was similar to three other cases involving more serious criminal acts. The Court compared Fusco to cases where an attorney participated in a four-year scheme to bilk investors out of more than $31 million and an attorney who cooperated in helping an informant launder $20,000 in profits from drug sales. He was also compared to a lawyer who stole $50,000 while serving as treasurer for a board overseeing court-appointed special advocates.

In those three cases, the lawyer was convicted of at least one financial crime. Each of those attorneys was indefinitely suspended.

"Having independently reviewed the record and our precedent , we conclude that Fusco's fraudulent scheme to increase the amount he received in bonuses from his former law firm warrants an indefinite suspension from the practice of law," the opinion stated.

The Court also denied Fusco credit for time served under his interim suspension. It reviewed more than 100 cases in which the Court considered whether to grant credit for time served, and it articulated factors for determining when credit should be afforded to a disciplined attorney. Weighing those factors, the chief justice explained, Fusco was not entitled to any credit for time he spent under the interim suspension.

In addition to the suspension, Fusco must pay for the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.

Suspension Unduly Long, Other Justices Maintain

Justice DeWine agreed with the majority's decision to suspend Fusco for two years but would have given him partial credit of one year for the time that he served under an interim suspension while his case was pending.

Justice DeWine explained that the Court rules allow for suspensions of six months to two years and for indefinite suspensions with or without credit for time served. While in other contexts the law routinely grants credit for time served, the Court does not have a rule requiring credit for time served under an interim felony suspension in disciplinary cases, but rather decides to grant time served on a case-by-case basis.

When an attorney receives an indefinite suspension, the attorney is eligible to apply for reinstatement after two years. By not granting credit for time served, the Court increases an attorney's overall suspension period beyond those two years.

Fusco faces a total suspension of 1,901 days before he can petition for reinstatement. Over a year of the time that he has already served occurred while the matter was pending in with the Court, Justice DeWine wrote. The opinion noted that the overall length of Fusco's suspension is sharply disproportionate to the suspensions in other cases with similar misconduct. The opinion also explained that in the 14 disciplinary cases involving fraud convictions, 10 of them were granted credit for time served during the interim suspensions.

"Without credit for time served, Fusco not only faces a markedly longer overall suspension than other attorneys with similar misconduct, but he will also have to wait longer to petition for reinstatement than our precedent instructs," Justice DeWine wrote.

The Court's precedent, he maintained, requires treating "like cases alike," which in this case would require granting Fusco at least one year credit for time that he had already served.

The case is cited 2024-1404. Disciplinary Counsel v. Fusco, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-5397.