ILNews

Lawyer disbarred for client altercation, numerous violations

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A criminal defense lawyer accused of instigating a physical altercation with a former client at the City-County Building in Indianapolis and committing numerous rules violations has been disbarred.

Steven B. Geller had to be restrained by guards after accosting a former client he believed owed him money at the courthouse in Indianapolis. He yelled at the ex-client, "I'll f***ing kill you!", according to the Indiana Supreme Court order of disbarment in In the Matter of: Steven B. Geller, 49S00-1106-DI-318.

"The Court concludes that (Geller) violated the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct by multiple acts of misconduct, including dishonesty to a court and to the (Disciplinary) Commission, improper ex parte communication with a judge, improper communication with a represented party, pervasive neglect of vulnerable clients, disorderly conduct in a judicial facility, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice," the 15-page per curiam order says.

Justices approved disbarment in a 4-1 decision. Justice Mark Massa concurred in part and dissented in part and would have imposed a three-year suspension without automatic reinstatement.

Geller had been suspended for one year in 2000 for threatening to reveal a client’s conviction for child molesting to fellow inmates in retaliation when the client threatened to file a grievance, the court noted, along with three financial violations.

“The Court notes [Geller’s] history of misconduct, his unsuccessful prior attempt at rehabilitation, his inability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his current misconduct (except admitting "losing it" in Count 1), and his confrontational attitude toward those involved in the disciplinary process,” the order reads.

“Of particular concern is (Geller’s) continued inability to manage his anger, his attempts to blame others, including his own clients, for his misconduct, and his dishonesty toward a court and the Commission. Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that disbarment is warranted.”

The court found Geller violated a dozen Rules of Professional Conduct. They are:

-- 1.3: Failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness;
-- 1.4(a)(3): Failure to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter;
-- 1.4(a)(4): Failure to comply promptly with a client's reasonable requests for information;
-- 1.4(b): Failure to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make informed decisions;
-- 1.5(b): Failing to communicate the scope of the lawyer's representation and the basis or rate of the fee for which a client will be responsible;
-- 1.16(d): After the termination of representation, failure to protect a client's interests, failure to refund an unearned fee, and failure promptly to return to a client case file materials to which the client is entitled;
-- 3.3(a)(1): Knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal;
-- 3.5(b): Engaging in an improper ex parte communication with a judge;
-- 4.2: Improperly communicating with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter;
-- 8.1(a): Knowingly making a false statement of material fact to the Disciplinary Commission in connection with a disciplinary matter;
-- 8.4(b): Committing a criminal act (disorderly conduct) that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer; and
-- 8.4(d): Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Separately, Geller was criminally charged in March 2013 with five counts of Class D felony tax evasion for failing to file Indiana individual or business income tax returns for the years 2007 through 2011.

According to the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office, Geller is due in Marion Superior Criminal Court 25 for a pretrial conference on May 29. His trial date is currently set for June 10.

Geller was admitted to practice in 1989.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Lawyers who lie
    Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

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. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  2. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

ADVERTISEMENT