Lawyer suspended after he's accused of plying teens with alcohol and touching one of them sexually
The Ohio Supreme Court has suspended a lawyer who pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault after being accused of touching his stepdaughter’s 18-year-old friend in a sexual manner during a sleepover in which she became sick from drinking the alcohol that he supplied. (Image from Shutterstock)
The Ohio Supreme Court has suspended a lawyer who pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault after being accused of touching his stepdaughter’s 18-year-old friend in a sexual manner during a sleepover in which she became sick from drinking the alcohol that he supplied.
In an April 25 per curiam opinion opinion, Westlake, Ohio, lawyer Daniel E. Perrico was suspended for two years, with the second year stayed on condition that he commit no further misconduct, Court News Ohio reports.
Perrico “adamantly denied” the accusations at the disciplinary hearing, according to the per curiam opinion.
Perrico was accused of supplying his then-15-year-old stepdaughter and two of her 18-year-old friends with alcohol during the sleepover, which happened when Perrico’s wife was out of town.
One of the older teenagers went to a basement bathroom to vomit, while the other went to an upstairs bathroom. The teen in the basement alleged that Perrico sat on the floor next to her in the bathroom, pulled her onto his lap, and began to sexually touch her over her clothes. She reported that Perrico said, “All the dirty things I could do to you right now.”
The stepdaughter testified that she and Perrico eventually carried the teen out of the basement bathroom, with the stepdaughter carrying the teen’s feet. The stepdaughter testified that Perrico put his hands under the teen’s armpits and put his hand on her breasts.
The teen eventually told the others what allegedly happened in the bathroom. Perrico’s stepdaughter didn’t tell her mother for about five months because she feared that it would strain the marriage. When the mother learned of the allegations, she told Perrico to leave the house and later filed for divorce.
The teens reported the incident to a Summit County, Ohio, sheriff’s deputy. The teen alleging sexual touching agreed to make a recorded call to Perrico. On the call, the teen said Perrico had gotten her intoxicated and groped her. He said he didn’t recall doing those things, but if he did, he was sorry.
Perrico was charged at first with three counts of furnishing alcohol to minors and sexual imposition, a third-degree misdemeanor. He pleaded guilty to two counts of supplying alcohol and to assault, a first-degree misdemeanor.
He received a suspended sentence of 120 days in jail and was placed on community control.
Perrico later contended that the assault charge was for the physical harm caused by supplying alcohol to the teen.
In a partial concurrence, Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy said Perrico should have received a full two-year suspension. Her opinion was joined by one other justice.
Another concurring justice, Justice Michael P. Donnelly, complained that Perrico avoided the sexual imposition charge in a plea bargain that did not accurately represent the alleged crime.
“Factually baseless plea agreements undermine” the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct’s ability to do its job, the concurrence said.
If Perrico had been found guilty of sexual imposition, he would have been required to register as a sex offender, and his conviction could not be sealed. The assault charge avoided those consequences.
“But the lack of a factual record surrounding Perrico’s plea gives him a third perk—the chance to craft the narrative of his criminal conduct to suit his own ends,” Donnelly wrote.
“In short, Perrico pleaded guilty to a crime that appears to have no factual basis whatsoever in the criminal record because the result was of greater benefit to him. The rest is lost to the black box of plea negotiations and agreements, into which one set of law and facts go and out of which a result emerges, seemingly without factual support or explanation.”
Perrico did not immediately respond to an ABA Journal voicemail seeking comment. He was represented by Peter Thomas Cahoon, who did not immediately respond to a voicemail and an email seeking comment.
