Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Battisti

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Battisti, 90 Ohio St.3d 452, 2000-Ohio-194.] 
 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. BATTISTI. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Battisti (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 452.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Causing client to sign 
blank affidavits and then later completing them in order to file the 
affidavits in court. 
(No. 00-764 — Submitted July 6, 2000 — Decided December 27, 2000.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-35. 
 
On June 7, 1999, relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed a complaint 
charging that respondent, Eugene F. Battisti, Jr. of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0037702, violated several rules 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”). 
 
The panel found that while representing Marde Driscoll in a child custody 
matter, respondent caused Driscoll to sign two blank affidavits which were then, 
at respondent’s direction, notarized by a paralegal in respondent’s office.  
Respondent later added the factual material to the body of the affidavits, some 
aspects of which were false, and transmitted one of the affidavits to Driscoll for 
review.  Respondent later filed both affidavits in the trial court. 
 
The panel concluded that causing a client to sign blank affidavits and then 
later completing them in order to file the affidavits in court violated DR 1-
102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) and 7-
102(A)(5) (knowingly making a false statement of fact).  The panel noted that 
respondent had a good reputation in the legal community, that he did not engage 
in similar practices either prior or subsequent to this action, that the affidavits 
 
2 
were signed in an emergency situation, that no one was harmed by the signing or 
filing of the affidavits, and that respondent  fully cooperated with relator’s 
investigation.  The panel therefore recommended that respondent receive a public 
reprimand. 
 
The board adopted the findings and conclusions of the panel, but further 
concluded that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and also recommended 
that respondent receive a public reprimand. 
__________________ 
 
Randall Arndt, Patricia K. Block and Bruce A. Campbell, for relator. 
 
Ronald L. Solove, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings of the board and its conclusion that 
respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and 7-102(A)(5). We do not conclude that 
respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4).  Our review of the stipulated facts also 
indicates that respondent’s infraction was an isolated incident.  We adopt the 
recommendation of the board and respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.