In the Matter of Christian Aaron Coomer

Christian Aaron Coomer, a lawyer who later became a Georgia Court of Appeals judge, represented James Filhart, an elderly client, in a guardianship case. While representing Filhart, Coomer borrowed money from him through several unsecured loans on favorable terms, drafted wills and a trust naming himself or his wife as executor and naming himself as a beneficiary, and later failed to promptly turn over Filhart's file when asked. These actions were part of the same conduct that had already led the Supreme Court of Georgia to remove Coomer from the bench in a separate judicial discipline case. After that removal, the State Bar pursued a separate attorney discipline case, and Coomer asked the court to accept a voluntary two-year suspension, backdated to when he was removed as a judge. A special master held a hearing, found Coomer's admissions supported by the evidence, and recommended accepting the deal. The court agreed, concluding the sanction fit similar past cases and that judges are held to a higher standard than lawyers generally, which explained why removal from the bench did not require an equally harsh outcome here.

The court accepted Coomer's admissions that he violated conflict-of-interest, business-transaction, gift-drafting, and client-property rules, and held that a two-year suspension, backdated to his removal from the bench, was an appropriate sanction given the aggravating factor of a vulnerable elderly client balanced against mitigating factors like remorse and no prior discipline.

The decision shows how Georgia disciplines lawyers who exploit trusted relationships with vulnerable clients, particularly elderly ones, for personal financial gain, while also illustrating that judicial removal and separate bar discipline can result in different, less severe sanctions for the same underlying conduct.

Petition for voluntary discipline accepted; two-year suspension imposed

1. The court applied the American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, a framework that looks at the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, the injury caused, and any aggravating or mitigating factors, to decide the appropriate punishment.
2. It found Coomer knowingly violated duties to his client and the legal profession by borrowing money from an elderly client on favorable unsecured terms and by drafting wills and a trust naming himself or his wife as executor and himself as a beneficiary, which caused real harm including unexpected taxes and legal costs for the client.
3. The court weighed aggravating factors, most importantly that the client was a vulnerable elderly person whose trust Coomer exploited, along with a pattern of repeated favorable loans and wills rather than a single isolated act.
4. Against those aggravating factors, the court weighed mitigating circumstances including Coomer's lack of prior discipline, genuine remorse, repayment of the loans, and extensive charitable work after his removal from the bench.
5. The court explained that judges are held to a higher standard of conduct than lawyers generally under the Code of Judicial Conduct, so removal from judicial office over this conduct did not require an equally severe outcome in the separate lawyer discipline case.
6. Comparing this case to prior Georgia disciplinary decisions involving similar conflicts of interest and client loans, the court concluded a two-year suspension fell within the range of sanctions previously imposed for comparable misconduct.

• attorney discipline
• conflict of interest
• elderly client exploitation
• judicial removal
• State Bar of Georgia