Columbus Bar Assn. v. Bhatt
133 Ohio St. 3d 131
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Sanjay K. Bhatt, an Ohio attorney since 1994, was publicly reprimanded for neglect and failure to keep clients informed and for failing to notify clients of a lapse in professional-liability insurance.
- Columbus Bar Association filed April 11, 2011, alleging Bhatt neglected two matters, failed to keep clients reasonably informed, and failed to notify them of insurance lapse; stipulations reduced some violations due to insufficient evidence on others.
- Panel and board adopted stipulations, dismissed five alleged violations, and recommended a public reprimand; the Supreme Court adopted those findings and publicly reprimanded Bhatt.
- Count One involved A & S Brothers Corporation; Bhatt received purchase-payment checks but did not deposit them in trust; he delayed accounting and ceased responding to shareholders, and later acknowledged insurance lapse occurred January–March 2010.
- Count Two involved Sharvette Brown’s custody case; Bhatt failed to timely file an agreed entry reflecting a settlement and failed to communicate ongoing status, and did not inform about the insurance lapse.
- Mitigating factors (no prior discipline, cooperation, acknowledgment of wrongdoing, good reputation) supported a public reprimand; costs taxed to Bhatt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Bhatt violate diligence and communication duties in the A&S matter? | Bar asserts Bhatt failed to diligently represent the client and keep them informed. | Bhatt contends the evidence does not establish these violations. | Yes; violations found under 1.3 and 1.4(a)(3). |
| Was Bhatt required to notify about the lapse in malpractice insurance in the A&S matter? | Bar contends Bhatt’s failure to inform about the insurance lapse violated ethical duties. | Bhatt argues the facts support the lapse but disputes the notice obligation as violated. | Yes; violation of 1.4(c) in the A&S matter. |
| Did Bhatt improperly handle client funds in the A&S matter under 1.15(e)? | Bar asserts Bhatt held disputed funds without proper client-trust handling. | Bhatt contends the funds were eventually disbursed per agreement. | Insufficient evidence to establish 1.15(a), 1.15(d), or 8.4(h); 1.15(e) violation acknowledged in stipulation. |
| Did Bhatt violate diligence, communication, and insurance-notice duties in the Brown custody matter? | Bar argues Bhatt failed to monitor deadlines and inform about the insurance lapse, harming Brown’s interests. | Bhatt disputes the sufficiency of evidence for these claims. | Yes; violations of 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), and 1.4(c) established; 1.1 and 8.4(h) not proven. |
| What sanction is appropriate for Bhatt’s misconduct? | Bar & Bhatt agreed on a public reprimand given mitigating factors. | Bhatt and Bar sought a public reprimand with costs taxed to Bhatt. | Public reprimand; costs taxed to respondent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Akron Bar Assn. v. Freedman, 128 Ohio St.3d 497 (2011-Ohio-1959) (public reprimand for communications failures and failure to disclose malpractice insurance)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Dundon, 129 Ohio St.3d 571 (2011-Ohio-4199) (public reprimand for neglect and miscommunication regarding client fees)
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (aggravating/mitigating factors in disciplinary sanctions guidance)