Columbus Bar Assn. v. Bhatt

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Bhatt, 133 Ohio St.3d 131, 2012-Ohio-4230.]

COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. BHATT.

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Bhatt, 133 Ohio St.3d 131, 2012-Ohio-4230.]

Attorneys—Neglect of entrusted legal matters and failure to keep a client

reasonably informed of the status of a matter—Failure to notify client of

lack of professional-liability insurance—Public reprimand.

(No. 2012-0286—Submitted April 24, 2012—Decided September 19, 2012.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-039.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Sanjay Kris Bhatt of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney

Registration No. 0063913, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1994.

{¶ 2} On April 11, 2011, relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed a

complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline

alleging, among other things, that Bhatt had neglected two client matters, failed to

keep those clients reasonably informed about their matters, and failed to notify

them that his professional-liability insurance lapsed for several months during his

representation. The parties entered into stipulations of fact and misconduct and

further agreed that there was insufficient evidence to support five of the violations

alleged in the complaint.

{¶ 3} The panel and board adopted the parties’ stipulations of fact and

misconduct, dismissed five of the alleged violations based upon the stipulated

insufficiency of the evidence, and adopted the jointly recommended sanction of a

public reprimand for Bhatt’s misconduct. We adopt the board’s findings of fact

and misconduct and publicly reprimand Bhatt.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Misconduct

Count One

{¶ 4} The parties stipulated that in 2004, Bhatt incorporated A & S

Brothers Corporation (“A & S”) on behalf of several clients, including Dr.

Niranjan Shah. Following the incorporation, A & S purchased and operated

several businesses, and Bhatt served as legal counsel to the corporation.

{¶ 5} A & S later sold the businesses it had acquired, receiving a down

payment of $72,000 from the buyer. The balance of the purchase price was to be

paid in monthly installments of $5,065. The shareholders agreed that certain bills

should be paid from the down payment but could not agree on how to disburse the

remaining proceeds.

{¶ 6} The buyer sent the monthly payments to Bhatt, who received them

on behalf of the corporation. However, Bhatt did not deposit those checks into his

client trust account or otherwise negotiate them because they were made payable

to A & S.

{¶ 7} In October 2008, Bhatt provided an accounting of the funds

received and the disbursements made on behalf of A & S. The shareholders then

entered into a written agreement to disburse the remainder of the down payment

and the first two monthly payments. The shareholders, however, could not agree

on how to disburse the remaining monthly checks. Bhatt continued to receive

checks from the buyer but was not able to negotiate them because they were made

payable to A & S. In 2009, he stopped responding to shareholder requests for

information and accountings.

{¶ 8} In February 2010, Shah filed a grievance with relator. After

receiving notice of the grievance, Bhatt asked the buyer to replace the monthly

checks with a single check made payable to his client trust account. In June,

however, the buyer sent another check for the prior payments payable only to the

corporation. The shareholders then agreed that Bhatt could deposit the check into

2

January Term, 2012

his client trust account, which he did. The shareholders finally agreed to resolve

their dispute in August, and Bhatt disbursed the funds pursuant to that agreement.

{¶ 9} The parties also stipulated that at Bhatt’s deposition, he testified

that his professional-liability insurance had lapsed from January through March

2010 and that he failed to notify A & S of this lapse.

{¶ 10} Based upon this conduct, the parties stipulated, and the panel and

board found, that Bhatt had violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act

with reasonable diligence in representing a client), 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to

keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter), 1.4(c) (requiring

a lawyer to inform the client if the lawyer does not maintain professional-liability

insurance), and 1.15(e) (requiring a lawyer in possession of funds in which two or

more persons claim an interest to hold those funds in his client trust account until

the dispute is resolved).

{¶ 11} However, having adopted the parties’ stipulation that there is

insufficient evidence to establish that Bhatt had violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)

(requiring a lawyer to hold property of clients in an interest-bearing client trust

account, separate from the lawyer’s own property), 1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to

provide notice when the lawyer receives funds in which a client has an interest

and to, upon request, promptly render a full accounting regarding such funds), and

8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on

the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), the panel and board recommend that we

dismiss these alleged violations.

Count Two

{¶ 12} The parties stipulated that in February 2008, Sharvette Brown

retained Bhatt to represent her in her bid to obtain legal custody of her grandson.

In September 2009, the parties to the custody action reached a final settlement of

the issues, and the magistrate directed Bhatt to draft an entry memorializing the

agreement.

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 13} Bhatt promptly drafted an agreed entry and sought to obtain the

signatures of counsel for the parents and the guardian ad litem, but counsel for the

parents requested substantive changes to the entry. Bhatt failed to monitor the

deadline for filing the agreed entry memorializing the parties’ settlement, and

although one extension of time to obtain counsels’ signatures was granted, he

failed to request another extension or attempt to submit the entry, which

accurately reflected the terms of the parties’ agreement, to the court following his

good-faith effort to obtain the signatures. Consequently, the court dismissed the

case.

{¶ 14} Because the custody case was dismissed, neither Brown nor her

son (the child’s father) had any legal right to custody of or visitation with the

child, and Brown could not obtain such rights without filing a new action. Bhatt

did attempt to secure the parents’ consent to reinstate the case in January 2010,

but the mother’s attorney advised him that the mother had retracted her consent to

the original agreement.

{¶ 15} Bhatt took no further action and did not communicate with Brown

until she filed a grievance with relator. Brown declined Bhatt’s offer to file a

motion for relief from judgment. At the time of the parties’ stipulations, the

child’s mother had not permitted Brown to see the child for more than one year.

Bhatt also failed to advise Brown that his professional-liability insurance had

lapsed from January through March 2010.

{¶ 16} Based upon Bhatt’s conduct in the Brown matter, the parties

stipulated, and the panel and board found, that Bhatt had violated Prof.Cond.R.

1.3, 1.4(a)(3), and 1.4(c) but that there was insufficient evidence to support the

alleged violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a lawyer to provide competent

representation to a client) or 8.4(h) with respect to this count.

4

January Term, 2012

Sanction

{¶ 17} In recommending a sanction, the panel and board considered

Bhatt’s conduct, the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg.

10, and the sanctions we have imposed for similar misconduct. See Stark Cty.

Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818,

¶ 16. To that end, they adopted the parties’ stipulation that Bhatt’s lack of any

prior disciplinary action, cooperation in these disciplinary proceedings,

acknowledgment of wrongdoing, absence of a selfish or dishonest motive, and

reputation in the legal community for good character are mitigating factors in this

case. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d), and (e). Neither the panel nor

the board found that any aggravating factors were present. Based upon these

factors, the facts of this case, and the existing case law, the panel and board

recommend, as did the parties, that we publicly reprimand Bhatt.

{¶ 18} We have previously imposed public reprimands for attorneys who

have engaged in conduct comparable to that of Bhatt. See, e.g., Akron Bar Assn.

v. Freedman, 128 Ohio St.3d 497, 2011-Ohio-1959, 946 N.E.2d 753 (publicly

reprimanding an attorney who failed to communicate with clients in a timely

manner, failed to keep them reasonably informed of the status of their case, and

failed to notify the clients that he did not maintain malpractice insurance or that

they could be entitled to a refund of any unearned portion of a nonrefundable fee);

Disciplinary Counsel v. Dundon, 129 Ohio St.3d 571, 2011-Ohio-4199, 954

N.E.2d 1186 (publicly reprimanding an attorney who neglected a client matter,

failed to regularly communicate with the client, and failed to timely respond to

requests for a refund of the client’s attorney fees).

{¶ 19} Based upon the foregoing, we adopt the board’s findings of fact

and misconduct, and we publicly reprimand Sanjay Kris Bhatt for his conduct in

these client matters. Costs are taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

5

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL,

LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.

__________________

Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel, and A. Alysha Clous, Assistant Bar

Counsel; and David S. Bloomfield and David H. Thomas, for relator.

Sanjay K. Bhatt, pro se.

______________________

6