[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Bhatt, 133 Ohio St.3d 131, 2012-Ohio-4230.] 

COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. BHATT. 

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Bhatt, 133 Ohio St.3d 131, 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 

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. 

 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

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 

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 
January Term, 2012 

3 

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 

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. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4 

{¶ 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 

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. 

 
January Term, 2012 

5 

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. Freedman, 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); 

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. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6 

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. 

______________________