Not That There ‘s Anything Wrong With It

An agreed upon admonition has been imposed by the Arizona Presiding Disciplinary Judge

Ms. Tarascio represented Father in a family law matter and believed Mother had kidnapped their baby with the assistance of Mothers’ parents. According to the Agreement this ultimately proved to be true. It states that through the efforts of the FBI, and Mesa Police, the baby was eventually located, reunited with Father and both the Grandparents and Mother were found to have taken the child in violation of court orders. They each pled guilty to custodial interference in an associated criminal matter.

But the end does not justify the means

To obtain information regarding the whereabouts of the child and Mother, Ms. Tarascio contacted a professional acquaintance, Karl Weiss who is a loan officer at Independent Mortgage in Scottsdale. Ms. Tarascio improperly obtained and provided Grandparents’ personal identifying information to her acquaintance. She also provided the Mother’s information to the same officer. She did not have their permission or court permission to do so. Their ploy was to use the personal credit information of each of their victims to run credit checks/credit under the guise that Mr. Weiss had loan applications from each. Ms. Tarascio says she was unaware there was anything wrong in this. Through that intentional subterfuge the loan officer verbally provided Ms.Tarascio with the credit histories verbally. This gives the strong appearance of the avoidance of an evidentiary trail of these fake applications.

The claimed ignorance by Ms. Tarascio that she did not know that she needed permission to obtain the financial information of apparently any opponent she chooses is more than troubling. Rather than straight up acknowledge that her desperation to help find her client’s child clouded her judgment, she instead blames her friend Karl Weiss. She bluntly blame-shifts that he should have known better and informed her of such impropriety. It is apparent from the documentary evidence in Grandparents’ objection that neither Ms. Tarascio nor her accomplice Mr. Weiss told his employer that they knew each other before she sought this financial information and that he was her “professional acquaintance.”

Subterfuge and cover-up is best accomplished without documentary evidence. The objection suggests that Ms. Tarascio obtained the credit history information but was careful not to receive written documentation of that information, but rather only verbal. Regardless, her conduct casts a dark image that lawyers are above the law. In a world where people often pay monthly fees to be alerted of such hacking and where the news often broadcasts the latest breech of client’s financial information, she and her friend used much older tried and true method that is never available to an ethical lawyer; intentionally being untruthful.

She then used the personal credit information to identify which financial institutions to issue subpoenas. Grandparents learned about the credit applications when the received a “Notice to the Home Loan Applicant” from Fairway Independent Mortgage which states, “In connection with your application for a home loan, the lender must disclose to you the score that a consumer reporting agency distributed to users and the lender used in connection with your home loan…” (Emphasis added.)

Their 124-page objection to the Agreement suggests multiple areas of continuing concern, including cover up. When grandparents objected to the invasion of their privacy, Ms. Tarascio apparently told the court there were no loan applications submitted. The evidence is to the contrary. But the stipulated evidence is that Grandparents received the loan rejection from Fairway Mortgage. The objection also points out that the defense by Ms. Tarascio to the court was her factual assertion that there was never a real loan application received. But that is only because there was no real person applying for credit, any more than any hacker turns in a real loan application. That she says she didn’t consider its illegality because of her apparent disinclination to research the issue and apparently didn’t even ask the question of her banking friend is defenseless.

Sanction

mitigation properly looks at the misconduct during its occurrence. Solely on that basis it is considered. The PDJ rejects the mitigating factor of remorse. Remorse does not consist of a feigned emotion that is more akin to sorrow that one has been caught. It is demonstrated by actions taken that acknowledge the wrong and seek to mitigate the consequences of that misconduct. There is no remorse. To the contrary there appears to be a pride that the ends justify the means. The character letters are noted but given no weight. Full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings is always significant. The absence of prior disciplinary offenses has weight.

All cases involving any prosecution revolve around evidence, perception and resources. The State Bar has discretion in its prosecution and determines how best to proceed. This matter appears to warrant a reprimand. The parties agree the mitigation submitted warrants a reduction in the presumptive sanction of reprimand to admonition.

(MIke Frisch)