Hawaii attorney convicted in ear licking case

iStockphoto

(AP) LIHUE, Hawaii - A judge called a Hawaii attorney convicted of harassment a "dirty old man" for licking a client's ear.

After a bench trial, Kauai attorney Lawrence McCreery, 64, was found guilty of harassment Thursday after a former client testified that while discussing her child custody case last year, he licked the back of her right ear.

She said he told the 21-year-old woman while touching her arm, "You look so good," and "Too bad you're married," according to the Kauai prosecuting attorney's office. The woman said he made a "weird sound" and hugged her tightly right before the licking.

McCreery testified to deny he licked her. He claimed she initiated the hug.

Per Diem Fifth Circuit District Court Judge Frank Rothschild ruled there's no evidence the woman made up the story. McCreery, who was licensed to practice law in Hawaii in 1975, was ordered to a pay a $250 fine, prosecutors said.

"Quite frankly," Rothschild said, "these are the actions of a dirty old man."

Defense attorney Michael Soong said he plans to appeal.

[LunaAzule]

Next issue...Judge sued by plaintiff he ruled in favor of on prior sexual harassment case. According to her attorney, he allegedly hit his gravel in a suggestive manner causing her great mental distress.

[JAH808]

A few things need to be said. This story was released by the Kauai County Prosecutor's office. The prosecutor, Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho, has a bad reputation and was recently referred to the Board of Ethics. She is generally quite disliked...do an internet search and see for yourself. Opportune time for a case like this to be widely publicized, making the prosecutor's office look like the "good guy". Another point, this attorney is a family man, does lots of community service and is well-liked. It's a small community, trust me. On top of everything, the law says "innocent until proven guilty" and not having a reason to lie doesn't prove a crime. How about the motive of trying to get out of paying a bill? Sorry but I don't believe the woman. I hope the appeal works out for him. He should also file a complaint about that judge, as his comments were uncalled for. The guy's plea was not guilty, his record is otherwise clean, and it's a misdemeanor. That hardly calls for a blanket statement about overall character, and considering his profession that's slander. And yes, if you're wondering, I'm a local.

[byrdh5n1]

At least the lawyer didn't take the Mike Tyson approach. Ear today, gone tomorrow......

[Ericwvb]

"Per Diem Fifth Circuit District Court Judge Frank Rothschild ruled there's no evidence the woman made up the story." -- Err what? We must be missing something. I thought the way it works is that you present evidence to show that the allegation is true, not state that there is no evidence to show that it's false.

[wordwrkr]

That was exactly my thought. Innocent until proven guilty, right? This country's legal system has really gone down the toilet.

[prm777]

"Rothschild ruled there's no evidence the woman made up the story". So, now one is not innocent until proven guilty, but guilty unless proven innocent??? If he did what he is accused of, I agree that it would be ideal that he be "proven" guilty and sentenced appropriately, but if someone can be convicted and sentenced simply on the word of one other person, with no evidence, this could lead to a lot of innocent people paying the price for false accusations.

[wordwrkr]

I was accused of something that wasn't true, by just one person. But to fight it was going to cost a fortune, and my attorney told me the judge was inclined to believe the other person -- with no evidence whatsoever. One person's false accusation cost me quite a bit of money, and one year on probation. What a crock. Without proof, this "ear licker" should be left alone.

[Jaylah54200]

I wonder if his phone won't go silent.

[rwsmith29456]

Geeeeee-ROSS!!!

[RogerInHawaii]

I always thought that you had to have evidence of guilt, not lack of evidence of innocence.