Wednesday, August 12, 2020

Indecent Exposure Conviction Leads To Consent Disbarment

The South Carolina Supreme Court has disbarred an attorney on consent after a series of sex-related criminal offenses

On June 5, 2018, Respondent was arrested and charged with indecent exposure, in violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 16-15-130, after he was observed exposing his genitals and masturbating. Respondent self-reported the arrest to ODC on June 19, 2018. On December 9, 2019, Respondent entered a plea pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, suspended to twelve months' probation and payment of $168.75 in court costs.

Respondent's previous disciplinary history includes two matters involving similar behavior. In 1997, Respondent received a four-month suspension citing the equivalent of Rules 8.4(b) (committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on an attorney's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects) and 8.4(c) (committing a criminal act involving moral turpitude), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR. In re Parrott, 325 S.C. 162, 480 S.E.2d 722 (1997). This four-month suspension followed Respondent's entry of an Alford plea to a charge of simple assault and battery he received after pulling down a woman's bathing suit while she was sunbathing at Surfside Beach in May 1994. Id. at 163, 480 S.E.2d at 723 (noting Respondent tried to pull off another woman's bikini bottom while she was sunbathing at North Myrtle Beach in October 1989, but was not prosecuted for this offense; and Respondent had no prior connection with either woman, covered his face during both incidents, and retreated when the women "put up a struggle").

That suspension order is linked here. 

In 2017, the Court suspended Respondent, then fifty-six years old, for nine months after he was arrested and charged with voyeurism for using a cell phone to take photos up a woman's skirt in a grocery store and failed to inform ODC of his arrest within the required fifteen-day period. In re Parrott, 421 S.C. 105, 107, 804 S.E.2d 852, 853 (2017). In its 2017 order, the Court found Respondent's conduct violated Rules 8.3(a) (requiring an attorney to provide notice to ODC in writing within fifteen days of being arrested or charged by way of indictment, information, or complaint with a serious crime), and 8.4(b) (committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on a lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR. In re Parrott, 421 S.C. at 109, 804 S.E.2d at 854.

Myrtle Beach online reported on the upskirt photo arrest

Jacob Parrot, 56, is charged with voyeurism, according to Myrtle Beach Jail records, and he may have been involved in a similar incident during the spring, police said.

Officers were called about 11:30 a.m. Aug. 9 to the Bi-Lo at 1241 38th Avenue North in reference to a person taking photos up a 45-year-old woman’s skirt with a cellphone, according to a report.

The victim told police she heard what sounded like photos being taken with a cellphone. She turned around and saw Parrot bent down next to her just after taking pictures up her skort, which is skirt combined with shorts, police said.

The victim asked him what he was doing, and he quickly walked away. She followed him out to his gray Ford Explorer, authorities said.

The victim snapped a photo of the license plate and police used the information to find Parrot, according to the report.

(Mike Frisch)

Bar Discipline & Process | Permalink


Post a comment