Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Harris

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HARRIS. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Harris (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Conviction of 
conspiracy to commit an offense or defraud the United States in violation 
of Section 371, Title 18, U.S.Code. 
(No. 98-719 — Submitted July 8, 1998  —  Decided November 10, 1998.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-53. 
 
During 1995, respondent, Paula Castle Harris of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0009317, was engaged in a telemarketing enterprise known as 
Innovative Enterprises Distributing Company (“IEDC”).  IEDC employees would 
telephone individuals and tell them that they had been selected to receive awards 
of significant value, but would have to pay a substantial up-front fee before the 
award could be transmitted.  Respondent participated in the enterprise by creating 
certificates of authenticity that she knew falsely represented the value of paintings 
that were shipped to individuals who sent money to IEDC. 
 
On October 16, 1996, respondent pled guilty to a felony, namely, conspiracy 
to commit an offense or defraud the United States in violation of Section 371, 
Title 18, U.S.Code.  She was sentenced to four years’ probation and ordered to pay 
to the United States an assessment of $50.  On May 19, 1997, being advised of the 
felony conviction, we suspended respondent from the practice of law in Ohio.  In 
re Harris (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 1502, 679 N.E.2d 4. 
 
On June 16, 1997, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint 
charging that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal 
conduct involving moral turpitude), (4) (engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and (6) (engaging in conduct that 
 
2
adversely reflects on the attorney’s fitness to practice law).  Respondent answered, 
and a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the 
Supreme Court (“board”) heard the matter and received stipulations of the parties 
to the facts and the violations.  Respondent introduced in mitigation evidence of 
her depression and mood swings since the age of thirteen, and a statement that her 
plea of guilty was based on the requirement of the United States Attorney that all 
co-defendants in the IEDC matter plead together, and her desire to avoid a jury 
trial and a possibly lengthy prison sentence for her husband. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(4) 
and 1-102(A)(6), and recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended 
from the practice of law.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Paula Castle Harris,  pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law 
in Ohio.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.