Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Beatty

Citation: 2001-Ohio-1345

Docket Number: 20010800

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-09-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Beatty, 93 Ohio St.3d 404, 2001-Ohio-1345] 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. BEATTY. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Beatty (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 404.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Two-year suspension — Engaging in conduct 
adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — Handling a legal matter 
not competent to handle — Neglect of an entrusted legal matter — Failing 
to seek lawful objectives of client — Failing to carry out contract for 
professional employment — Failing to promptly deliver to client funds or 
property client is entitled to — Neglecting or refusing to assist or testify in 
disciplinary investigation or hearing. 
(No. 01-800 — Submitted June 20, 2001 — Decided September 19, 2001.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
of the Supreme Court, No. 00-77. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On December 26, 2000, relator, Columbus Bar Association, 
filed a four-count amended complaint charging that respondent, Daniel R. Beatty, 
Attorney Registration No. 0064901, of Columbus, Ohio, violated several provisions 
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”). 
 
Based on the stipulations of the parties, the panel found that in July 1999, 
Keith A. Crabbs employed respondent and paid him a $500 retainer to pursue a claim 
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 12101 et seq., Title 42, U.S.Code.  
Thereafter, Crabbs was able to contact respondent only once, in November 1999, 
when respondent told Crabbs that he would get back to him.  After Crabbs filed a 
grievance against respondent and relator began its investigation, respondent met with 
Crabbs, returned Crabbs’s original papers to him, and gave him a check for $500.  
The check, however, was dishonored for insufficient funds. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
The panel also found that in October 1998, Charles Bezak retained 
respondent and paid him a $200 retainer to investigate and pursue an action based on 
a beating Bezak suffered while an inmate at Orient Correctional Institution.  After 
respondent filed a complaint for Bezak in June 1999 and took one or two depositions 
in the matter, he took no further action and failed to communicate further with Bezak.  
Respondent later dismissed the case without consulting Bezak  and did not promptly 
return his retainer. 
 
The panel found that in April 1997, Alethea McLaughlin engaged respondent 
to represent her with respect to injuries she received as a result of an automobile 
accident.  Upon finding that the other driver involved in the accident was uninsured, 
respondent wrote a letter to McLaughlin’s insurance company in an attempt to 
recover under the uninsured motorist provisions of her policy but did nothing further 
on her behalf and did not respond to inquiries by McLaughlin.  By the time 
McLaughlin retained other counsel, the statute of limitations had run on her claim. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s actions and failures to act in the 
Crabbs, Bezak, and McLaughlin matters violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not 
engage in conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 6-
101(A)(1) (a lawyer shall not handle a legal matter that he is not competent to 
handle), 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter), 7-
101(A)(1) (a lawyer shall not intentionally fail to seek the lawful objectives of a 
client), and 7-101(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not fail to carry out a contract for 
professional employment).  In the Crabbs and Bezak matters, the panel found 
respondent also violated DR 9-102(B)(4) (a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the 
client funds or property to which the client is entitled). 
 
In addition, the panel found that respondent did not reply to relator’s initial 
inquires in the Crabbs and Bezak matters and concluded that this failure violated both 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (no attorney shall neglect or refuse to assist or testify in an 
investigation or hearing) and DR 1-102(A)(6).  The panel recommended that 
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years and that he complete 
January Term, 2001 
3 
a minimum of ten hours of continuing legal education in office management and law 
practice management during his suspension.  The board adopted the findings, 
conclusions, and recommendations of the panel. 
 
Upon review of this matter, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendations of the board.  Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of 
law for two years and he is ordered to complete a minimum of ten hours of 
continuing legal education in office management and law practice management 
during his suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Bruce A. Campbell, Jill M. Snitcher McQuain, David K. Greer and David W. 
Hardyman, for relator. 
 
Mark H. Aultman, for respondent. 
__________________