We May Not Always Have Paris: The Client Was A “Beautiful Irish Girl”
The web page of the Ohio Supreme Court has the story of a disciplinary case up for oral argument this week.
Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association v. Tasso Paris, Case no. 2015-2009
Cuyahoga County
The Board of Professional Conduct recommends that Cleveland attorney Tasso Paris be suspended from practicing law for six months. The board concluded that Paris repeatedly tried to entice a client to have a sexual relationship with him and also failed to show up at the client’s sentencing hearing.
Lawyer Skips Client’s Hearing
Jennifer Cook hired Paris to represent her after she was arrested on March 17, 2013, for driving under the influence, with a suspended license, and without “full time and attention” to her driving. Paris was paid $1,000 to represent Cook.
Cook pled guilty to reduced charges in August 2013, and the court ordered her to appear a few weeks later at a sentencing hearing. Cook showed up, but Paris didn’t. Nor did he tell Cook that he wouldn’t be attending the hearing or ask another attorney to appear for him, according to stipulations he made in the disciplinary case. However, Paris later testified that he asked his father, also an attorney, to attend the hearing. When the judge asked Cook whether she had an attorney, she responded that he wasn’t there and that she was having problems with him propositioning her.
The court then set aside Cook’s plea, the case was reassigned to another judge, and a public defender was appointed to represent Cook through the rest of her case. She later filed a grievance against Paris with the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association.
Client Invited to Dinner, Hot Tub
Paris admitted that he referred to Cook as a “beautiful Irish girl” when telling her no one would believe her story about the St. Patrick’s Day accident. He also conceded that he asked her several times during his representation to go out with him and invited her more than once to go to his house and join him in his hot tub.
Bar Association, Attorney Agree to Six-Month Stayed Suspension
Paris agreed that he violated the professional conduct rule prohibiting sexual activity with a client and another rule requiring diligence in handling a client’s case. The bar association and Paris agreed on a six-month suspension, all stayed, on the condition that the lawyer commit no more misconduct and repay Cook $1,000.
However, the board’s report to the Supreme Court stated the panel reviewing the matter wasn’t convinced, based on his testimony at the hearing, that Paris understood why his conduct was wrong. The report noted that Paris used his position of dominance as her lawyer in a criminal case to solicit her. In addition, Cook testified that she thought Paris wouldn’t do a good job representing her if she didn’t at least act like she was considering going out with him. Given the lack of weighty mitigating factors and the serious nature of this type of conduct, which violates the trust essential between an attorney and client, the board recommended a six-month actual suspension.
Lawyer Objects to Board’s Conclusions, Requests Lesser Punishment
Paris asks the Supreme Court to impose the six-month stayed suspension agreed to by the parties before the board’s hearing. To support this view, he disputes specific conclusions made in the board’s report. While the report states no record showed whether the misconduct indicated a pattern or was an isolated incident, Paris counters that he has been a lawyer for 28 years without any disciplinary action. He claims Cook even referred a friend to him for legal representation. He also contends he has accepted responsibility, which is evident given that he “signed the stipulation and acknowledged that his conduct may have been mistakenly taken by [Cook].” In addition, he submitted a separate personal affidavit to present his thoughts to the Court.
Bar Association Sees Lack of Accountability
The bar association responds that several parts of the objections contain information and claims that aren’t part of the case record. Noting that Paris has already stipulated to soliciting Cook for sex, the bar association further stresses that the comment in Paris’ objections that his “conduct may have been mistakenly taken” by his client reflects the opposite of taking responsibility. Nor does he ever apologize for neglecting to appear at Cook’s sentencing, the bar association asserts.
The bar association also maintains that Paris’ affidavit is an “improper attempt to supplement the record,” and one that again attacks Cook. Paris hasn’t shown remorse for his conduct or apologized to her, it argues. The bar association asks the Court to “at a minimum” impose the board-recommended six-month actual suspension.
Kathleen Maloney
Seems to me that a six-month suspension with automatic reinstatement is mighty light on crime here. (Mike Frisch)