CAMPBELL — The Ohio Supreme Court’s Board of Professional Conduct on Friday to issued a public reprimand against Campbell’s former law director.

Brian J. Macala was recommended by the Mahoning County Bar Association a one-year stayed suspension from his practice last month. As stated in the court’s records, the case, involving Macala’s forgery of clients’ signatures on a document submitted to probate court, was heard by three members of the board. Macala was present for the hearing alongside his attorney, John Juhasz.

“Based upon the parties’ stipulations and evidence presented at the hearing, the panel finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent (Macala) engaged in professional misconduct, as outlined below. Upon consideration of the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors, and case precedents, the panel recommends that Respondent be publicly reprimanded,” a Supreme Court filing states.

The conduct violations are “communication”: a lawyer shall keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a legal matter; “candor toward the tribunal”: a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to a tribunal by a lawyer; and “professional misconduct”: engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud or misrepresentation.

Both sides agreed to dismiss two other alleged violations: failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, and professional misconduct for committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness.

The panel associated the aggravating factors: “A dishonest or selfish motive; and multiple offenses” in its finding of facts. The mitigating factors were concluded: “No prior disciplinary record; full and free disclosure to the bar investigator, to Relator, and to the Board, and cooperative attitude toward the proceedings; and good character and reputation.”

Furthermore, the panel stated that it believes the misconduct at issue in the case are comparable to other document falsification cases in which the Supreme Court has approved a public reprimand as an appropriate sanction.

In early 2020, Macala was hired to represent two estates, which were determined “relatively complex” by the court. Documents from the state also suggest that Macala did substantial work over the following two years to identify relevant assets.

The complaint filed by the Mahoning County Bar Association against Macala, for a case from his private law practice in Salem, states that on May 17, 2022, he signed the names of five people on probate filings regarding two estates in order to get a time extension.

Macala was terminated from further services with the executor of the two estates. Following the court’s findings, however, it was determined that there was no indication that Macala’s conduct affected the outcome of either estate proceeding.

In August 2022, Macala provided a written response to the allegations stated in the complaint and admitted to the wrongdoing – that he signed the waivers on behalf of the heirs and the fiduciary without their knowledge or consent, and filed the documents with the forged signatures in the probate court.

No money was paid to Macala prior to his termination, according to the October joint filing by David C. Comstock Jr., representing the bar association, and Juhasz.

The same filing states Macala has no prior disciplinary record and “has made full and free disclosure to the bar investigator, to Realtor (the bar association) and to the board and exhibited a cooperative attitude toward the proceedings,” and “is of good character and reputation.”

Macala also apologized to the executor / fiduciary of the two estates “for his actions and expressed an understanding of (her) decision to terminate him regarding the forgeries,” the joint filing reads.

Juhasz requested a public reprimand for Macala because of his lack of prior discipline, he disclosed what happened to the bar association and cooperated, his good character and reputation, the conduct did not involve his public office, his genuine remorse and the estates were not impacted by his acts.