The Akron Legal News

Attorney disciplined for making unwelcome sexual advances toward client

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: September 9, 2016

The Ohio Supreme Court was divided recently when it considered whether to suspend a Cleveland attorney from the practice of law for making unwelcome sexual advances toward a female client.

The 4-3 decision resulted in a suspension of six months for attorney Tasso Paris, to be stayed on condition that he commit no further misconduct.

In a per curiam majority ruling, justices Paul Pfeifer, Terrence O’Donnell, Judith French and Sharon Kennedy rebuffed the recommendation of the Board of Professional Conduct that the high court adopt a presumption of an actual suspension for misconduct involving sexual impropriety.

“Noting the increasing frequency of cases involving repeated and unwelcome solicitation of clients for sexual activity, the board urges us to hold that in the absence of significant mitigating factors, this court will impose an actual suspension on attorneys who have engaged in such conduct,” the majority wrote.

As it currently stands, the Supreme Court will presume a suspension with no stay for attorneys “who have engaged in material misrepresentation to a court or have engaged in a pattern of dishonesty with a client.”

Only significant mitigating factors can overcome the presumption of an actual suspension in those types of cases.

The Board of Professional Conduct argued that, in light of Paris’ solicitation of his client, the fact that he failed to appear at her sentencing hearing and his failure to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct or express remorse, Paris should be suspended for six months with no stay.

The high court disagreed, noting that it has imposed stayed suspensions in other, more disturbing cases involving attorney solicitation of clients.

“We have consistently disapproved of the conduct of lawyers who have solicited or engaged in sexual activity with their clients,” the majority wrote. “We by no means condone Paris’ conduct in this matter, but on the stipulated facts before us, we find that his actions are most comparable to cases in which we have imposed fully stayed suspensions.”

In her separate, concurring opinion, Justice Sharon Kennedy wrote that the board’s argument in favor of a presumed suspension violated the high court’s “deeply rooted process of determining the appropriate sanction in each individual case.”

Kennedy held that the case-by-case approach that the Supreme Court takes to disciplinary cases cannot be subjected to a rule change by judicial decree.

“Presuming an actual suspension would fundamentally transform our well-established individualized process of attorney discipline into a formulaic ‘one size fits all’ system,” Kennedy wrote. “This philosophical shift should be carried out, if ever, only pursuant to this court’s long-standing rulemaking process, not through judicial fiat.”

According to Kennedy, it is for the members of the legal community to debate a rule change that would establish a presumed suspension.

In her dissent, Justice Judith Lanzinger was joined by Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justice William O’Neill in support of a presumption of an actual suspension for sexual misconduct.

“We already presume that an actual suspension will be the sanction for behavior involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation unless mitigating factors justify a stay,” Lanzinger wrote. “I believe that the same type of sanction should be imposed upon respondents like Tasso Paris, especially because it appears that cases of this type are increasing.”

According to Lanzinger, the high court should do more than “merely express disapproval” of an attorney’s conduct via a stayed suspension.

But, in light of the majority’s ruling, Paris’ suspension was stayed and he was ordered to refund the retainer paid by his client and engage in no further misconduct.

The case is cited Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Paris, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5581.

[Back]