STIPULATED REPORT OF FINDINGS AND ORDER OF A PANEL OF THE GRIEVANCE COMMISSION M. BAR R. 13(E)
On September 20, 2022, with due notice, a Panel of the Grievance Commission conducted a public disciplinary hearing pursuant to Maine Bar Rule 13(e), concerning misconduct by the Respondent, Pasquale J. Perrino, Jr., Esq. The Board of Overseers of the Bar (the Board) commenced this proceeding by the filing of a Stipulated Formal Disciplinary Charges Petition.
At the September 20, 2022 hearing, Attorney Perrino was represented by James M. Bowie, Esq., and the Board was represented by Assistant Bar Counsel Audrey B. Braccio, Esq. The Clerk provided complainant, Dorothy Lovell, with notice of the action through her attorney Lee Bals, Esq. Ms. Lovell did not appear at the hearing but her counsel Attorney Bals was present..
Prior to the scheduled hearing date, the parties notified the Grievance Commission that they had negotiated a proposed settlement of the disciplinary matter. The proposed Stipulated Report of Findings and Order was submitted to the Clerk for the Commission's advance review and consideration. Bar Counsel also provided Ms. Lovell, through her counsel, with a copy of the parties' proposed Stipulated Report in advance of the hearing.
Having reviewed the agreed proposed findings as presented by counsel, the Grievance Commission makes the following disposition:
FINDINGS
Respondent Pasquale J. Perrino, Esq. was at all times relevant hereto an attorney duly admitted to and engaging in the practice of law in the State of Maine and subject to the Maine Bar Rules and the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct. Attorney Perrino was admitted to the Maine Bar in 1970. He has been on inactive status with the Bar since October 18, 2021.
According to the parties' stipulations, the Commission finds the following relevant facts:
On or about March 24, 2021, D.L. (the "Complainant") filed a complaint with the Board against Attorney Perrino. In that complaint, D.L. stated that she had retained Attorney Perrino to represent her in a divorce from her husband, and then again in a post-judgment matter, and that during that time, a "personal relationship" had developed between them. Based upon information provided by D.L. during the investigation, that is not contested by Attorney Perrino, Attorney Perrino began representing D.L. as her attorney in May of 2018. Thereafter, in March of 2019, D.L. and Attorney Perrino began a consensual sexual relationship with each other, which lasted for some time.
Maine Rule of Professional Conduct 1.8(j) states: "A lawyer shall not have sexual relations with a client unless a consensual sexual relationship existed between them when the client-lawyer relationship commenced." Attorney Perrino does not contest that he violated that Rule in his relationship with D.L.
CONCLUSION AND SANCTION
The Commission notes that the purpose of Bar disciplinary proceedings is not punishment, but rather the protection of the public from attorneys who, by their conduct, have demonstrated that they are unable to properly discharge their professional duties. Because the evidence supports a finding, and Attorney Perrino agrees, that he did in fact violate the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, the Grievance Commission must now issue an appropriate sanction.
Pursuant to Maine Bar Rule 13(e)(6) and (8), prior to imposing a sanction, the Commission has considered the existence or absence of any prior sanction record. Attorney Perrino has no prior sanction record.
The Commission relies on Maine Bar Rule 21(c) for guidance as to the proper factors to consider and apply in the issuance of an appropriate disciplinary sanction. Maine Bar Rule 21 states as follows:
(c) Factors to be Considered in Imposing Sanctions. In imposing a sanction after a finding of lawyer misconduct, the Single Justice, the Court, or the Grievance Commission panel shall consider the following factors, as enumerated in the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions:
(1) whether the lawyer has violated a duty owed to a client, to the public, to the legal system, or to the profession;
(2) whether the lawyer acted intentionally, knowingly, or negligently;
(3) the amount of the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and
(4) the existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors.
In this matter, Attorney Perrino agrees that his misconduct violated duties that he owed to his client and to the profession. Attorney Perrino appears to have misunderstood or failed to recognize his obligations under Rule 1.8(j). This misconduct had the potential to cause harm to the client and the client felt that her interests were harmed. It is additionally an aggravating factor that D.L. was in vulnerable circumstances at the time they commenced the relationship. However, the unethical conduct is unlikely to be repeated, especially in light of Attorney Perrino's current inactive status. Attorney Perrino's admission of his misconduct is also a factor in mitigation.
Taking all of the above factors into consideration, and consistent with the analysis outlined in Maine Bar Rule 21(c), the Panel Commission imposes the following sanction:
1. Attorney Perrino is hereby REPRIMANDED by the Grievance Commission pursuant to Maine Bar Rule 21(b)(5).
2. As a condition of this Reprimand, in the event that Attorney Perrino applies for emeritus status to provide
pro bono services, he shall be required to disclose the existence of this Reprimand to any legal service organization with which he will be working.
Therefore, the Panel accepts the agreement of the parties, including Attorney Perrino's separately executed waiver of the right to file a Petition for Review, and concludes that the appropriate disposition of this case is a Public Reprimand to Pasquale J. Perrino, Jr., Esq., which is now hereby issued and imposed upon him pursuant to Maine Bar Rule 13(e)(10)(C) and 21(b)(5).