Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Bhatt

Citation: 2012-Ohio-4230

Docket Number: 2012-0286

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-09-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Bhatt, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4230.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2012-OHIO-4230 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. BHATT. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Bhatt,  
Slip Opinion No. 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 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
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. 
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 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
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 
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 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
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. 
{¶ 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 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
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. 
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. Freeman, 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); 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
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. 
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. 
______________________