|
|
| 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | Search | Upcoming cases |
Public Information Home
Supreme Court Suspends Two Attorneys For Failure to Resolve Child Support Arrearages
In separate disciplinary actions announced today, the Supreme Court of Ohio suspended the Ohio law licenses of attorneys Thomas Lee Geer of New Castle, Pa. and Charles Eric Curry of Youngstown for one year.
In both cases, the Court imposed an additional term of suspension on an attorney whose license was already under an interim suspension based on a court judgment finding him in default of a child support order. In both cases, the Court held that the attorney's ongoing failure to come into compliance with a child support order constituted a discrete violation of the disciplinary rule that bars attorneys from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the attorney's fitness to practice law.
2006-1177. Disciplinary Counsel v. Geer, 2006-Ohio-6516.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 05-072. Thomas Lee Geer, Attorney Registration No. 0011038, is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, O'Connor and O'Donnell, JJ., concur.
Lundberg Stratton and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-6516.pdf
(Dec. 27, 2006) In a decision announced today, the Supreme Court of Ohio voted 5-2 to suspend the license of attorney Thomas Lee Geer, formerly of Columbus, for one year for failing to come into compliance with a court order that he correct a large and longstanding arrearage in child support payments. The suspension, effective immediately, is in addition an interim license suspension already in force against Geer since January 2006 based on an adjudication that he was in default of a child support obligation.
Geer was charged in August 2005 with two counts of professional misconduct for failing to comply with an order to correct his child support arrearage and for failing to answer a complaint he received from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel regarding that misconduct. In light of Geer's failure to answer the complaint or otherwise cooperate with disciplinary authorities, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline initiated default proceedings, and a master commissioner appointed by the board made findings of misconduct and recommended a sanction to the board, which it adopted.
According to the board's report, upon the dissolution of his marriage Geer was ordered to pay $3,000 per month in child support and $5,000 per year in spousal support. On Oct. 22, 2004, the Franklin County Child Support Enforcement Agency certified that Geer, who currently resides in New Castle, Pa. was in default on his child support obligation with a then-current arrearage of $319,000. The child support agency subsequently contacted Disciplinary Counsel regarding the arrearages.
The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas adopted the child support agency's certification and set Geer's child support arrearage at $396,959.48 as of Aug. 31, 2005. In light of the emancipation of his oldest child, the court ordered Geer to pay current child support at a rate of $2,000 per month for his two youngest children, and to pay an additional $1,300 per month for past due child support, plus an ongoing $416.67 per month for spousal support. After being notified of the Ohio adjudication, the Lawrence County, Pa. Court of Common Pleas subsequently entered an order finding that it had jurisdiction over the matter and authority to determine the amount of arrearage, specify the payments and grant any other relief. The court issued various orders to collect the child support, including orders to attach Geer's income from his law practice and to freeze account assets.
In light of Geer's failure to notify the Supreme Court or disciplinary board of any steps he has taken to come into compliance with the court orders entered against him, and his additional failure to answer the disciplinary complaint based on his continuing default, the Court adopted the board's finding that Geer's conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(6), which prohibits an attorney from engaging in conduct that reflects adversely on his fitness to practice. The Court also found a violation of the state bar governance rule that requires attorneys to cooperate with disciplinary proceedings.
The Court adopted the board's recommended sanction of one-year suspension of Geer's law license, with no credit for his ongoing interim suspension and with any reinstatement to be on the condition that he proves compliance with all the requirements imposed in the interim suspension order.
The majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, and Justices Alice Robie Resnick, Paul E. Pfeifer, Maureen O'Connor, and Terrence O'Donnell.
Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton entered a dissent that was joined by Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger. Justice Stratton expressed her concern that the Court's action in imposing an additional term of suspension on top of an attorney's interim suspension for defaulting on a child support obligation “reduces respondent's ability to earn a living, thereby diminishing his ability to support his children in the long run.” Justice Stratton said she would instead “continue respondent's interim suspension as previously ordered by this court. We need not do anything further as respondent is already suspended from the practice of law.”
Contacts
Carol Costa, 614.461.0256, for
the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
No current contact information available for Thomas L. Geer.
2006-1178. Disciplinary Counsel v. Curry, 2006-Ohio-6517.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 05-070. Charles Eric Curry, Attorney Registration No. 0062864, is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, O'Connor and O'Donnell, JJ., concur.
Lundberg Stratton and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-6517.pdf
(Dec. 27, 2006) The Supreme Court has voted 5-2 to suspend the law license of attorney Charles Eric Curry for one year for failing to come into compliance with a child support order and failing to respond to a disciplinary complaint filed against him for that misconduct. The suspension is in addition an interim suspension the Court imposed against Curry in November 2004, when it was notified by the Mahoning County Child Support Enforcement Agency that Curry was in default of his child support obligations.
The notice certified an arrearage of $33,337.67 and established a current child-support obligation of $465 per month. In July 2005, the Court imposed a second interim suspension pursuant to a notice from the support agency that Curry was in default of child support for a second child. The notice certified an arrearage of $55,447.31.
Following the Court's receipt of both default notices, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel sent letters of inquiry to Curry's business and residential addresses as listed in the Court's attorney registration database, but Curry failed to respond to those notices and subsequently failed to submit any information or explanation regarding his failure to meet child support obligations or take action to comply with updated court orders.
On Aug. 8, 2005, Disciplinary Counsel charged Curry with two counts of professional misconduct, the first involving his failure to pay child support as ordered and the second charging that he had failed to respond to inquiries during a disciplinary investigation. In light of Curry's failure to answer these complaints, the disciplinary board initiated default proceedings against Curry and a master commissioner appointed by the board made findings of misconduct and recommended a sanction to the board, which the board adopted.
In today's decision, the Court adopted the board's finding that Curry's conduct violated the Ohio disciplinary rule that prohibits conduct by an attorney that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. The board also found that Geer violated the state bar governance rule that requires a lawyer to cooperate in an investigation of professional misconduct.
In adopting the board's recommendation of a one-year license suspension as the appropriate sanction, the Court acknowledged the board's finding that Curry was admitted to practice at the age of 40 and that: “While Respondent's initial accumulation of child support arrearages may have resulted from a temporary decrease in Respondent's available income as the result of his change of employment which offered a potential for greater long range earnings, he has failed to adequately address his obligations to at least two of his children for the last 12 years while he has held his professional license to practice law.”
The Court conditioned any reinstatement of Curry's license following the one-year suspension on his compliance with all requirements imposed in the interim suspension order. The Court's per curiam opinion was joined by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, and Justices Alice Robie Resnick, Paul E. Pfeifer, Maureen O'Connor and Terrence O'Donnell.
Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton entered a dissenting opinion, referencing her dissent in Disciplinary Counsel v. Geer and stating that she would not have imposed an additional suspension but would rather have simply left Curry's interim suspension in place until he took the necessary steps to come into compliance with his child support orders. “ As soon as respondent becomes current on his arrearage and current on his child-support obligations, I would allow him to provide proof of doing so and permit him to apply to be reinstated on the condition that he proves compliance with all the requirements imposed in this court's interim suspension order,” wrote Justice Stratton. “In so doing, respondent would be able to more quickly return to the practice of law and be able to earn a living and better provide for his children.”
Contacts
Stacy Solochek Beckman, 614.461.0256, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
No current contact information available for Charles Curry.
Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/ROD/newpdf/. In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."