Columbus Bar Assn. v. Battisti

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Battisti, 90 Ohio St.3d 452, 2000-Ohio-194.]

COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. BATTISTI.

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Battisti (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 452.]

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Causing client to sign

blank affidavits and then later completing them in order to file the

affidavits in court.

(No. 00-764 — Submitted July 6, 2000 — Decided December 27, 2000.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-35.

On June 7, 1999, relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed a complaint

charging that respondent, Eugene F. Battisti, Jr. of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney

Registration No. 0037702, violated several rules of the Code of Professional

Responsibility. Respondent answered, and the matter was submitted to a panel of

the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court

(“board”).

The panel found that while representing Marde Driscoll in a child custody

matter, respondent caused Driscoll to sign two blank affidavits which were then,

at respondent’s direction, notarized by a paralegal in respondent’s office.

Respondent later added the factual material to the body of the affidavits, some

aspects of which were false, and transmitted one of the affidavits to Driscoll for

review. Respondent later filed both affidavits in the trial court.

The panel concluded that causing a client to sign blank affidavits and then

later completing them in order to file the affidavits in court violated DR 1-

102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) and 7-

102(A)(5) (knowingly making a false statement of fact). The panel noted that

respondent had a good reputation in the legal community, that he did not engage

in similar practices either prior or subsequent to this action, that the affidavits

were signed in an emergency situation, that no one was harmed by the signing or

filing of the affidavits, and that respondent fully cooperated with relator’s

investigation. The panel therefore recommended that respondent receive a public

reprimand.

The board adopted the findings and conclusions of the panel, but further

concluded that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct

involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and also recommended

that respondent receive a public reprimand.

__________________

Randall Arndt, Patricia K. Block and Bruce A. Campbell, for relator.

Ronald L. Solove, for respondent.

__________________

Per Curiam. We adopt the findings of the board and its conclusion that

respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and 7-102(A)(5). We do not conclude that

respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4). Our review of the stipulated facts also

indicates that respondent’s infraction was an isolated incident. We adopt the

recommendation of the board and respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded.

Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and

LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

2