Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association v. Paris
148 Ohio St. 3d 55
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Respondent Tasso Paris, an Ohio lawyer admitted in 1987, was accused by the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association of repeatedly soliciting sexual activity from a female client and failing to appear at her sentencing hearing.
- The client testified that Paris called her a "beautiful Irish girl," invited her on dates, and repeatedly asked her to come to his home and use his hot tub; she felt uncomfortable and feared reporting him would hurt her case.
- Paris stipulated to the solicitations and to failing to appear for sentencing (and not notifying the client or arranging substitute counsel); the judge vacated the plea after the client said Paris had been "trying to get in my pants."
- The parties stipulated to misconduct and jointly recommended a six-month suspension stayed in its entirety on condition of no further misconduct; the disciplinary panel heard testimony and found Paris failed to acknowledge wrongdoing, recommending a six-month actual suspension.
- The Board adopted the panel’s report; the Supreme Court adopted findings of fact and misconduct but sustained Paris’s objection to the board’s reliance on contradictory testimonial evidence and imposed a six-month suspension stayed on conditions (full stay conditioned on restitution of $1,000 and no further misconduct).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Paris violate professional conduct rules by soliciting sexual activity from a client and neglecting representation? | Relator: Yes — violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and 1.8(j). | Paris: Stipulated facts but disputed some testimonial inferences; minimized conduct. | Held: Violations proven; court adopts parties’ stipulations of misconduct. |
| Whether additional aggravating factor (failure to accept wrongdoing) could be based on panel testimony beyond stipulations | Relator/board: Panel testimony showed lack of remorse; supports aggravation. | Paris: Panel improperly relied on testimony that contradicted stipulations; unfair to add aggravation. | Held: Court sustains Paris’s objection — declines to adopt additional aggravating factor based on that testimony. |
| Appropriate sanction (fully stayed suspension vs. actual suspension) | Relator/board: Repeated unwelcome solicitation, failure to appear, lack of acknowledgement justify an actual six-month suspension. | Paris: Parties jointly recommended a six-month suspension fully stayed on conditions; urged enforcement of stipulated sanction. | Held: Court imposes six-month suspension stayed in full on conditions (refund $1,000 and no further misconduct); stay will be lifted on noncompliance. |
| Whether court should adopt a presumption of actual suspension for repeated solicitation of vulnerable clients | Board/panel urged a presumption akin to Fowerbaugh (dishonesty cases). | Paris/concurring justice: Creation of such a presumption is rulemaking and improper; sanctioning should remain individualized. | Held: Court declines to create a new presumption; rejects board’s suggested categorical presumption. |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Hubbell, 144 Ohio St.3d 334 (2015) (conditionally stayed six-month suspension for attorney who sought romantic relationship with client).
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Quatman, 108 Ohio St.3d 389 (2006) (one-year conditionally stayed suspension for sexual misconduct toward client).
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh, 74 Ohio St.3d 187 (1995) (established presumption of actual suspension for dishonesty, absent mitigating factors).
- Akron Bar Assn. v. Miller, 130 Ohio St.3d 1 (2011) (conditionally stayed six-month suspension and monitored probation for lewd solicitations of client).
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Sturgeon, 111 Ohio St.3d 285 (2006) (disbarment for repeated solicitation, sexual misconduct, and dishonesty).
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Bunstine, 136 Ohio St.3d 276 (2013) (conditionally stayed one-year suspension for repeat solicitation; prior discipline exacerbated sanction).
- Toledo Bar Assn. v. Burkholder, 109 Ohio St.3d 443 (2006) (conditionally stayed six-month suspension for persistent solicitations and inappropriate touching).
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman, 106 Ohio St.3d 334 (2005) (six-month actual suspension for sexual exploitation and solicitation for photographs).
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Engler, 110 Ohio St.3d 138 (2006) (public reprimand for consensual sexual encounters that did not compromise client).