ILNews

2 Indianapolis attorneys charged with felonies

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Two Indianapolis attorneys are facing criminal charges after the Marion County prosecutor filed charges in unrelated cases.

Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry issued a press release Friday, announcing the criminal charges against attorneys David F. Rees and Steven B. Geller.

According to the release, Rees has been charged with theft of funds held in an estate that he managed, a Class C felony, and with obstruction of justice, a Class D felony. He has agreed to enter a guilty plea to both charges with a sentence to be concurrent on the two counts. He faces a maximum sentence of eight years, $20,000 in fines and restitution of $270,549.

Rees, according to the probable cause affidavit, drafted the will and was executor of the estate for his client Benjamin Roberts. Eight years after the client’s death, about $400,000 was missing from the estate. Rees has acknowledged diverting $270,549 into his personal account.

The obstruction charge arises from Rees allegedly filing a fraudulent “final accounting” in the estate on Jan. 20, 2012, indicating the unaccounted for funds were still in the estate.  

In a separate case, Steven B. Geller has been charged with five counts of Class D felony evasion of tax for failing to file Indiana individual or business income tax returns for the tax years 2007 through 2011. He was arrested Thursday.

Rees, who was admitted to practice in 1965, resigned from the bar on Jan. 28, 2013. Geller, admitted in 1989, is listed as active in good standing on the Indiana Roll of Attorneys, but has one concluded disciplinary case and another pending.
 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • STEVEN B GELLAR
    FREE MY LAWYER ! HES THE BEST ! GELLAR YOU LL BE FINE AND GET YOUR SELF OUTTA THERE! YOUR MOUTH PIECE IS COLD! YOUR ONE OF THE BEST DONT LET THE BULLSHIT BRING YOU DOWN !!
  • Counsel to the Council
    Wasn't David Rees the general counsel to the Common Council of the City of Lawrence? Maybe someday all of the crooks will be out of the government up there. Or, maybe it and the other corrupt fiefdoms within the County will be consolidated in an efficient, transparent Indianapolis City/County government... Maybe...

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT