From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Geer

Supreme Court of Montana
May 16, 2023
PR 23-0276 (Mont. May. 16, 2023)

Opinion

PR 23-0276

05-16-2023

IN THE MATTER OF SUZANNE E. GEER, An Attorney at Law, Respondent.

Pamela D. Bucy Chief Disciplinaiy Counsel


Supreme Court Cause No. ODC File No. 22-187

Pamela D. Bucy Chief Disciplinaiy Counsel

COMPLAINT

Rules 1.7 and 1.9, MRPC

By leave of the Commission on Practice granted on April 20,2023, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel for the State of Montana (ODC), hereby charges Suzanne Geer with professional misconduct as follows:

General Allegations

1. Suzanne Geer, hereinafter referred to as Respondent, was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Montana in 1996, at which time Respondent took the oath required for admission, wherein she agreed to abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Disciplinary Rules adopted by the Supreme Court, and the highest standards of honesty, justice and morality, including but not limited to, those outlined in parts 3 and 4 of Chapter 61, Title 37, Montana Code Annotated.

2. The Montana Supreme Court has approved and adopted the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC), governing the ethical conduct of attorneys licensed to practice in the State of Montana, which Rules were in effect at all times mentioned in this Complaint.

Count One

3. ODC realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 2 of the General Allegations as if fully restated in this Count One.

4. In 2012, Respondent prepared a prenuptial agreement and "mirror wills" for Ann Fox (Fox) and Michael Ellsworth (Ellsworth). Both received invoices from Respondent and paid the same amount.

5. Respondent failed to obtain any fee agreement demonstrating who she represented and the prenuptial agreement did not indicate Respondent only represented Ellsworth.

6. In April 2021, Fox filed for divorce through her counsel, Brandi Ries (Ries). Ellsworth hired Respondent to represent him.

7. Respondent contacted Ries to inquire if Fox would waive the conflict. Ries advised against waiving the conflict but Fox agreed. Ries requested Respondent provide a consent waiver, but Respondent failed to do so.

8. Respondent failed to obtain a written conflict waiver from either Ellsworth or Fox.

9. During the couples' settlement conference in October of2021, Respondent advocated for a settlement that was contrary to the prenuptial agreement. The settlement master informed Respondent that her representation of Ellsworth was a conflict and encouraged her to withdraw. Respondent withdrew at that time.

10. After the couples' settlement conference, Fox expressed anger and frustration that the prenuptial agreement was attacked by Respondent. Fox indicated she did not expect that to occur seeing as Respondent had drafted the agreement.

11. At the April 22,2022, trial, Respondent was called as a witness where she testified about her failure to obtain conflict waivers in both the drafting of the prenuptial agreement and the later representation of Ellsworth in the dissolution.

12. By her conduct outlined above, Respondent violated Rule 1.7, Conflict of Interest: Current Clients, MRPC, by engaging in direct and inherent adverse representation of Fox in the dissolution proceedings without a conflict waiver, confirmed in writing.

13. By her conduct outlined above, Respondent violated Rule 1.9, Duties to Former Clients, MRPC, by engaging in direct and inherent adverse representation of Fox in the dissolution proceedings without a conflict waiver, confirmed in writing.

WHEREFORE, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel prays:

1. That a Citation be issued to the Respondent, to which shall be attached a copy of the complaint, requiring Respondent, within twenty-one (21) days after service thereof, to file a written answer to the complaint;

2. That a formal hearing be had on the allegations of this complaint before an Adjudicatory Panel of the Commission;

3. That the Adjudicatory Panel of the Commission make a report of its findings and recommendations after a formal hearing to the Montana Supreme Court, and, in the event the Adjudicatory Panel finds the facts warrant disciplinary action and recommends discipline, that the Commission also recommend the nature and extent of appropriate disciplinary action, including an award of costs and expenses incurred in investigating and prosecuting this matter; and, 4. For such other and further relief as deemed necessary and proper.


Summaries of

In re Geer

Supreme Court of Montana
May 16, 2023
PR 23-0276 (Mont. May. 16, 2023)
Case details for

In re Geer

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF SUZANNE E. GEER, An Attorney at Law, Respondent.

Court:Supreme Court of Montana

Date published: May 16, 2023

Citations

PR 23-0276 (Mont. May. 16, 2023)