Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Pyatt

Citation: 1997-Ohio-307

Docket Number: 19970872

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-11-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. PYATT. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Pyatt (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 191.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Failure to cooperate in 
a disciplinary investigation — Failure to maintain good standing with 
Supreme Court by failing to register with Clerk of Court for current 
biennium and failing to advise Clerk of current office address. 
(No. 97-872 — Submitted August 26, 1997 — Decided November 5, 1997.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-14. 
 
On February 5, 1996, the Cincinnati Bar Association, relator, filed a 
complaint alleging that on February 18, 1994, respondent, Jeffrey S. Pyatt of 
Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0047576, undertook to represent 
Jennifer Kamphaus on a contingent fee basis in regard to an automobile accident.  
The complaint further alleged that respondent informed Kamphaus that he could 
settle her case for $2,000, despite the fact that she was still undergoing medical 
treatment for her personal injuries, had $500 in damages to her automobile, and a 
lost-wage claim in excess of $1,200.  The complaint alleged that for several 
months after April 1995, Kamphaus was unable to contact respondent about the 
progress of her case.  In July 1995, she discovered that respondent’s phone had 
been disconnected.  The complaint alleged that after Kamphaus sent a letter via 
certified mail to respondent in August 1995, he called and told her that she would 
receive a check within a week, although she had not agreed to a settlement of her 
case.  The complaint alleged that Kamphaus then discharged respondent and 
employed another attorney, who timely filed a suit on her behalf. 
 
The complaint alleged that after Kamphaus filed a grievance, relator had 
difficulty in contacting respondent.  After being reached, respondent claimed that 
 
2
he had intended to file an action on behalf of Kamphaus, but was discharged 
before he could do so.  Relator further claimed that respondent failed to turn over 
to relator his file with respect to Kamphaus and failed to appear for a subpoenaed 
deposition. 
 
Relator claimed that respondent’s actions violated DR 2-110(A)(2) (a 
lawyer shall not withdraw from employment without taking steps to avoid 
prejudice to his client and without delivering to the client all papers and property 
to which the client is entitled), 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect a legal 
matter entrusted to him), 7-101(A)(1) (a lawyer shall not fail to seek the lawful 
objectives of a client), 7-101(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not fail to carry out a contract 
of employment), and 9-102(B)(4) (a lawyer shall promptly deliver to a client 
property to which the client is entitled).  Relator also claimed that by failing to 
cooperate in the investigation, respondent violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and 
requested that respondent be disciplined pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V. 
 
Respondent filed an answer denying that he told Kamphaus her claim could 
be settled for $2,000, and denying, for the most part, that for four months 
Kamphaus attempted to and was unable to contact him.  Respondent admitted that 
he received a certified letter and telephoned Kamphaus, but he denied telling 
Kamphaus she would receive a settlement check within a week.  Respondent 
further admitted that he failed to deliver the Kamphaus file to relator and failed to 
attend a deposition, but denied that he was served with a subpoena and that he had 
notice of the deposition. 
 
Relator twice attempted to serve respondent with a subpoena duces tecum at 
his business address as registered with the Supreme Court.  Both attempts, one 
before and one after the filing of the complaint, were unsuccessful.  After relator 
failed in an attempt to serve respondent through a private process server, relator 
 
3
filed a motion for default judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 37(D) and 37(B)(2)(c).  In 
accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B), the motion was served on the Clerk of the 
Supreme Court of Ohio, who replied that since September 1, 1995, respondent was 
not in good standing with the Supreme Court and that his last known business 
address was that at which the relator had attempted to serve the subpoenas.  
 
A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the 
Supreme Court (“board”) considered the pleadings and found the facts as alleged 
and that respondent had failed to cooperate in relator’s investigation.  The panel 
granted the motion for default judgment and concluded that respondent had 
violated DR  2-110(A)(2), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1) and (2), and Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G).  The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from 
the practice of law.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Gates T. Richards and Edwin W. Patterson III, for relator. 
 
Jeffrey S. Pyatt, pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Based upon the record before us and the findings of the board 
with respect to respondent’s failure to respond to relator’s inquiries, we conclude 
that respondent not only has failed to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation, but 
also has failed to maintain his good standing with this court both by failing to 
register with the Clerk of Court for the current biennium, as required by Gov.Bar 
R. VI, and by failing to advise the Clerk of his current office address as required 
by Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(D). 
 
4
 
We therefore adopt the recommendation of the board and indefinitely 
suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs of these proceedings 
are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.