The Tip And The Stream

Among the 16 cases recently certified for disciplinary hearing in Ohio is a case where the allegations appear to charge an attorney with zealous representation run amok.

The attorney represented the mother of a three-year old child. The father sought parenting time.

The attorney had sought court-ordered drug testing of the father, which had not been granted. The court order required father to be drug and alcohol-free for 24 hours before a supervised visit. 

Allegedly, the attorney appeared at Welcome to Our Place, where the father had his supervised parenting time. The complaint contends that the attorney falsely claimed to have a court order for a drug test.

The father agreed to take a test that the attorney had brought with him. 

The attorney allegedly followed the father into the the rest room and said he “needed to see Father’s ‘tip’ and stream.’ “

At that point, father refused the test and the attorney admitted he did not have a court order.

The visitation did not take place as the client refused to make her available. 

The magistrate expressed astonishment at these events and noted that the attorney had made himself a witness in the case. 

Complaint and answer linked here.

The attorney has a prior public reprimand for unrelated misconduct.

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.

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…

Another case involves allegations that an attorney admitted in 1978 had an “intimate sexual relationship” with a client in a civil matter that began after the representation had commenced.

The answer contends that the relationship was “fully consensual, mutual, extended, committed and public” and that the delay in reporting rendered the allegations “stale by the passage of time…” (Mike Frisch)