2024 Ohio 1540
Ohio2024Background
- Daniel Edward Perrico, an Ohio attorney, provided alcohol to his underage stepdaughter and her friends, and inappropriately touched one of them (C.P.), who was 18 at the time, during a 2019 sleepover.
- Perrico was criminally charged with three counts of furnishing alcohol to minors and sexual imposition; he ultimately pled guilty to two counts of furnishing alcohol to underage persons and one count of misdemeanor assault.
- The assault charge replaced a sexual imposition charge, allowing Perrico to avoid sex offender registration and the possibility that the conviction could not be sealed; his convictions were later sealed.
- During disciplinary proceedings, credible testimony from the victims contradicted Perrico's version of events, showing that he acted with a selfish and dishonest motive and caused harm to his vulnerable victims.
- The Board of Professional Conduct recommended a two-year suspension with one year stayed, and conditions for reinstatement, which the Supreme Court of Ohio adopted; some justices dissented, calling for a harsher penalty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Perrico's conduct violate Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (illegal act reflecting on honesty)? | Perrico's criminal conduct and the underlying facts warrant discipline. | Admitted some wrongdoing, argued behavior was not as egregious, and pleaded guilty only to lesser charges. | Yes; furnishing alcohol to minors and sexual contact constituted an illegal act adversely reflecting on honesty/trustworthiness. |
| Did Perrico's conduct violate Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (conduct adversely reflecting on fitness)? | Conduct was egregious and violated professional standards. | Argued for less severe sanction, minimized severity, and claimed credibility issues in victims' accounts. | Yes; egregious, predatory conduct adversely reflected on fitness to practice law. |
| What is the appropriate sanction for this misconduct? | Sought a two-year suspension with one year stayed, with reinstatement conditions. | Argued for a public reprimand or at most a fully stayed suspension. | Two-year suspension, one year stayed, with assessment and treatment conditions for reinstatement. |
| Does the plea arrangement and sealed conviction affect ability to sanction? | Board relied on underlying facts, not just convictions, and victims' testimony established truth. | Claimed lack of factual basis in plea made discipline harder, tried to recast motivations for plea. | Board may look beyond conviction to underlying conduct; plea arrangement does not insulate from discipline. |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 137 Ohio St.3d 35 (2013) (egregious criminal conduct can support additional Rule 8.4(h) violation)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. O’Neill, 103 Ohio St.3d 204 (2004) (purpose of attorney discipline is public protection, not punishment)
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Kenney, 110 Ohio St.3d 38 (2006) (attorney suspension for sexual imposition based on underlying conduct)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Carter, 2023-Ohio-3992 (handling sanctions in attorney discipline for sexual misconduct)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Romer, 172 Ohio St.3d 680 (2023) (attorney discipline must consider underlying conduct, not just conviction)