Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association v. Paris
68 N.E.3d 775, 2016 Ohio 5581, 148 Ohio St. 3d 55 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's unwelcome sexual solicitation of a client and subsequent neglect of the client's case may warrant a stayed suspension rather than an actual suspension if significant mitigating factors, such as a lengthy career without prior discipline, are present.
Facts:
- A woman hired attorney Tasso Paris to represent her in Cleveland Municipal Court on charges of driving under the influence and driving under suspension following a St. Patrick's Day car accident.
- During the representation, Paris referred to the client as his 'beautiful Irish girl.'
- Paris repeatedly asked the client to go out with him and, on multiple occasions, invited her to his house to join him in his hot tub.
- The client felt uncomfortable with Paris's advances and feared that refusing them would negatively impact his representation of her.
- After the client pleaded guilty to lesser charges, she was scheduled for a sentencing hearing.
- Paris failed to appear at the client's sentencing hearing and did not arrange for another attorney to attend on his behalf.
- At the hearing, when asked by the judge if she had representation, the client stated that Paris failed to appear because '[h]e's be[en] doing nothing but trying to get in my pants.'
- Following the client's statement, the judge vacated the plea, recused herself, and a public defender was appointed to the client, who later filed a grievance against Paris.
Procedural Posture:
- The Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association filed a complaint against attorney Tasso Paris with the Board of Professional Conduct.
- The parties submitted stipulations of fact and misconduct and jointly recommended a six-month suspension, fully stayed.
- A panel of the Board of Professional Conduct conducted a hearing, adopted the stipulations, but found an additional aggravating factor: Paris's failure to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct.
- The panel rejected the parties' joint recommendation and instead recommended a six-month actual suspension from the practice of law.
- The full Board of Professional Conduct adopted the panel's report and recommendation in its entirety.
- Paris, the respondent, filed objections to the board's report and recommendation with the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney's unwelcome sexual solicitation of a client and subsequent failure to appear at the client's sentencing hearing warrant an actual suspension from the practice of law when the attorney has a clean disciplinary record of nearly 30 years?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. While the attorney's conduct is not condoned, a six-month stayed suspension is the appropriate sanction given the specific facts and mitigating factors. The court declined to adopt an additional aggravating factor (failure to acknowledge wrongful conduct) found by the board, citing potential unfairness in how testimony was elicited at the hearing. Comparing Paris's misconduct to precedent cases involving sexual misconduct, the court found his actions more aligned with those that resulted in fully stayed suspensions, especially considering his nearly 30 years of practice without a prior disciplinary record, which suggests this was an isolated incident.
Dissenting - Lanzinger, J.
Yes. The attorney's misconduct warrants an actual six-month suspension. The dissent argues that the court should establish a presumption of actual suspension for repeated, unwelcome sexual solicitation of vulnerable clients, similar to the existing presumption for conduct involving dishonesty. The mitigating factors of no prior discipline and cooperation are outweighed by the selfish motive, multiple offenses, harm to the client, and Paris's failure to accept the wrongful nature of his actions. A stayed suspension is insufficient to address the gravity of the misconduct and protect the public.
Concurring - Kennedy, J.
No. A stayed suspension is appropriate, but primarily because the court should not create new, rigid presumptions for attorney sanctions through case law. The concurrence argues that establishing a presumption of an actual suspension is antithetical to the rules requiring an individualized assessment of each case based on its unique facts, circumstances, and applicable aggravating and mitigating factors. Such a fundamental shift from an individualized process to a 'one size fits all' system should only occur through the formal rulemaking process, not by judicial fiat.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the court's preference for a case-by-case, fact-intensive approach to attorney discipline over creating rigid, presumptive sanctions for specific types of misconduct. It demonstrates that significant mitigating factors, particularly a long career free of disciplinary action, can heavily influence the sanction, even in cases of serious ethical breaches like sexual misconduct and client neglect. The split decision, however, highlights an ongoing judicial debate about whether certain professional violations, like the sexual solicitation of clients, should be treated with the same presumptive severity as dishonesty or fraud to better protect the public and uphold the integrity of the profession.
