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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT