Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Beatty

Citation: 2004-Ohio-2684

Docket Number: 20040022

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-06-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Beatty, 102 Ohio St.3d 267, 2004-Ohio-2684.] 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. BEATTY. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Beatty, 102 Ohio St.3d 267, 2004-Ohio-2684.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Additional acts of 
professional conduct while under suspension — Failure to cooperate. 
(No. 2004-0022 — Submitted March 15, 2004 — Decided June 9, 2004.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-001. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Daniel R. Beatty of Wellsville, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0064901, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1995.  
On September 19, 2001, we suspended respondent’s law license for a period of 
two years for his neglect of three clients’ cases, among other misconduct.  
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Beatty (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 404, 754 N.E.2d 1264.  On 
August 8, 2002, we cited respondent for contempt for failing to comply with our 
order requiring the surrender of his certificate of admission and his filing of an 
affidavit of compliance.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Beatty, 96 Ohio St.3d 1472, 
2002-Ohio-4002, 772 N.E.2d 1206. 
{¶2} 
On November 20, 2002, relator, Columbus Bar Association, 
charged respondent with having committed additional acts of professional 
misconduct.  Respondent was served with the complaint but did not answer, and 
relator moved for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  The Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline appointed a master commissioner to 
consider the motion for default and thereafter granted the motion, making findings 
of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶3} 
The board found that respondent, whose license remains under 
suspension, received but did not respond to relator’s repeated inquiries about a 
grievance filed against him by an attorney for a former client.  The board thus 
found respondent in violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring an attorney to 
cooperate in an investigation of misconduct) and DR 1-102(A)(6) (barring 
conduct reflecting adversely on an attorney’s fitness to practice law).  Because 
respondent did not comply with the administrative requirements of our order, the 
board also found respondent in violation of DR 1-102(A)(5) (barring conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice). 
{¶2} 
In recommending a sanction, the board considered as a mitigating 
factor that respondent did appear and testify on June 13, 2003, at a deposition that 
relator scheduled to accommodate respondent’s medical condition.  At the 
deposition, respondent expressed remorse for his failure to cooperate in the 
investigation and comply with our order; however, he also conceded that these 
failings had aggravated his situation, and the board so found.  Respondent further 
resolved during his deposition to take steps to rectify his situation; however, the 
board observed that he had not made any apparent efforts toward this goal. 
{¶3} 
Relator proposed that respondent’s law license be indefinitely 
suspended.  The master commissioner recommended permanent disbarment, in 
part based on unsubstantiated misconduct not charged in relator’s complaint.  The 
board accepted relator’s proposal and recommended an indefinite suspension. 
{¶4} 
Upon review, we agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) 
and (6) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) as found by the board.  Moreover, we find an 
indefinite suspension to be the appropriate sanction.  Along with respondent’s 
significant and recent record of disciplinary infractions, he manifests a lack of 
commitment to his professional duties of cooperation and compliance in 
disciplinary proceedings.  The breach of these duties “ill serve[s] the profession, 
January Term, 2004 
3 
this court, and the respondent himself.”  Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vala (1998), 82 
Ohio St.3d 57, 59, 693 N.E.2d 1083. 
{¶5} 
Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended indefinitely from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Loveland & Brosius and Richard L. Loveland; Stanley D. Ross; Bruce A. 
Campbell, Bar Counsel, and Jill M. Snitcher McQuain, Assistant Bar Counsel, for 
relator. 
__________________