On Friday, February 24, 2023, attorney Daniel Edward Perrico was charged before the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court of Ohio for misconduct that reflects adversely on his trustworthiness to practice law.

The case is entitled “Disciplinary Counsel v. Daniel Edward Perrico.” with case no. 2023-002.

The charges cited Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(b) and 8.4(h) which states:

Prohibiting a lawyer from committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness.

Prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.

According to the complaint, the respondent violated the rules by engaging in criminal conduct that reflects adversely on his fitness and trustworthiness to practice law.

The filing states:

“While the respondent and C.P. were alone, the respondent taught C.P. how to make his “famous” truffle macaroni and cheese. While C.P. and the respondent were also alone, the respondent made C.P. several alcoholic mixed drinks, and he gave her several shots of liquor. C.P. consumed the drinks that the respondent gave her. Throughout the evening, the respondent stood very close to C.P. Several times, he put his hands on C.P.’s shoulders or on the small of her back. C.P. become uncomfortable with the respondent’s conduct. She called B.R. and asked her to come to the respondent’s house, anticipating they could leave when B.R. arrived; however, B.R. had to complete her work shift.”

The filing continues:

“B.R. wanted to take C.P. and T.B. to her apartment; however, the respondent took B.R.’s keys from her. Respondent then began giving B.R. mixed alcoholic drinks and shots of liquor. He told B.R. that she had to drink them as “punishment” for allowing T.B. to drink at the party at B.R.’s house earlier in the year. See T 12-13. B.R. consumed the drinks that the respondent gave her.”

The filing further states:

“C.P. texted the respondent and stated, “you killed [B.R.] she never drinks that much and now she’s dying.”A short time later, C.P. texted the respondent again and stated, “you broke my best friend and now she’s at my house dying.” On or about September 29, 2019, B.R. was admitted to the hospital for a severe kidney infection, which had started as a urinary tract infection (“UTI”). On or about September 30, 2019, B.R. was released from the hospital; however, she remained sick for several days. T.B. was afraid to tell her mother, K.P., about the incident on September 27 and 28, 2019, because she believed that one of two things would happen: 1) it would cause K.P. and respondent, who were already having marital problems, to divorce or 2) K.P. would not believe her.”

The filing additionally notes:

“During this conversation, C.P. told T.B. and B.R. for the first time what respondent had done to her in the bathroom, 1.e., touching her breasts, rubbing her leg, and saying, “Do you know all the things that I could do to you right now?” See 143. T.B. told C.P. and B.R. about her concerns about telling K.P. what had happened on September 27 and 28, 2019. Accordingly, T.B., C.P., and B.R. agreed not to say anything about the incident to anyone until T.B. was ready to talk about it.”

Due to these allegations, the relator requests that the respondent be found in violation of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and be sanctioned accordingly.

As of today, Mr. Perrico runs his own law firm, The Law Office of Daniel Pericco, LLC. He attended the University of Dayton School of Law. Mr. Perrico practices in Macedonia, Ohio. He is licensed in Ohio. His info can be found on lawyer.com.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.