FOR THE RESPONDENT FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
Kevin P. McGoff Donald R. Lundberg, Executive Secretary
Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 Robert C. Shook, Staff Attorney
115 West Washington Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF )
) CASE NO. 29S00-0103-DI-171
PAUL J. PACIOR )
DISCIPLINARY ACTION
June 17, 2002
Per Curiam
Because he made romantic advances toward a client in one instance, and
deceptively advertised “free initial consultation” in another, we find
today that the respondent here, Paul J. Pacior, violated the Rules of
Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law and that he should be admonished
for such conduct.
This attorney disciplinary matter is before us now upon the
Disciplinary Commission’s and the respondent’s Statement of Circumstances
and Conditional Agreement for Discipline, tendered to us in anticipated
resolution of the formal disciplinary charges pending against the
respondent. The respondent is a Hamilton County attorney who was admitted
to the Indiana bar in 1987.
Pursuant to the charges which comprise Count I of the verified
complaint, the Commission and the respondent agree that while the
respondent represented the wife in a dissolution and a petition for
bankruptcy, the respondent expressed a romantic interest in her by sending
her various notes and cards. He personally manifested his romantic
interest in her during appointments she had with him in his law office.
Three times he hugged and kissed her during the pendency of the dissolution
and bankruptcy. We find that the respondent violated Ind.Professional
Conduct Rule 1.7(b) by continuing to represent the client after expressing
and promoting his personal and romantic interest in her.[1] He also
violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) because his acts were prejudicial to the
administration of justice.[2]
Under Count II, the parties agree that a woman, after noticing the
respondent’s yellow pages advertisement offering a “free appointment” and a
“free initial consultation,” contacted the respondent in contemplation of
obtaining an emergency protective order. She paid a $300 retainer to the
respondent and scheduled an initial appointment for September 12, 2000. At
the conclusion of their meeting, the respondent mailed his fee agreement
for the representation to the woman. Several days later, she contacted the
respondent’s office, advised that she was “terminating” the respondent’s
representation of her, and requested a refund of the $300 she had paid.
The next day, the woman received a refund check from the respondent for
$100, along with a written explanation of services which provided that the
respondent was charging the woman $150 for the initial consultation and an
additional $50 for legal services provided the day of the consultation.
By advertising a free initial consultation and free appointment and
later charging the woman for their initial meeting, the respondent made a
misleading and deceptive public statement in violation of Prof.Cond.R.
7.1(b).[3]
The agreement before us contains a list of purported “mitigating
factors,” including the respondent’s lack of any prior disciplinary
complaints, his service as a public defender in Hamilton County, his
acceptance of responsibility for the actions leading to the Commission’s
charges, and his remorse for taking those actions. We note that in a past
instance of false or misleading advertising, this Court imposed a public
admonishment that was a product of an agreed resolution. Matter of
Huelskamp, 740 N.E.2d 846 (Ind. 2000) (misleading advertisement containing
improper testimonials). Similarly, conflicts of interest have also
warranted reprimand. See Matter of Bales, 608 N.E.2d 987 (Ind. 1993).[4]
In this case, we credit our acceptance of a rather lenient suggested
sanction to the fact that we favor agreed resolutions of disciplinary
charges and in light of the mitigating factors which the Commission has
endorsed.
It is, therefore, ordered that the respondent, Paul J. Pacior, is
hereby reprimanded and admonished for the misconduct set forth herein.
The Clerk of this Court is directed to provide notice of this order
in accordance with Admis.Disc.R. 23(3)(d) and the hearing officer in this
matter, and to provide the clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit, the clerk of each of the United States District Courts
in this State, and the Clerk of each of the United States Bankruptcy Courts
in this state with the last known address of the respondent as reflected in
the records of the Clerk.
Costs of this proceeding are assessed against the respondent.
-----------------------
[1] Professional Conduct Rule 1.7(b) provides:
A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client
may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another
client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests, unless:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be
adversely affected; and
(2) the client consents after consultation. When representation of
multiple clients in a single matter is undertaken, the consultation shall
include explanation of the implications of the common representation and
the advantages and risks involved.
[2] Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(d) provides:
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is
prejudicial to the administration of justice;
[3] Professional Conduct Rule 7.1(b) provides:
A lawyer shall not, on behalf of himself, his partner or associate or any
other lawyer affiliated with him or his firm, use, or participate in the
use of, any form of public communication containing a false, fraudulent,
misleading, deceptive, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim.
[4] In the case at bar, it was the respondent’s expression of personal and
romantic interest in the client that led to the respondent’s conflict of
interest. Had that expression been manifested in more strenuous fashion,
the appropriate discipline would have been more severe. See, e.g., Matter
of Tsoutsoris, 748 N.E.2d 856 (Ind. 2001) (30 day suspension for sexual
contact with client).