In the end, the state Supreme Court this week afforded Christian Coomer, a disgraced former Appeals Court Judge, some leniency even after it was almost certainly clear that he schemed to hoodwink an elderly client.
In the months before he was appointed a judge in 2018, Coomer had a client loan him vast amounts of money ($370,000 in total), including a favorable unsecured loan to be paid off when the client was 106 years old. If the old fellow up and died before the century mark, no problem — Coomer drew up a will designating himself as executive, trustee and beneficiary.
After he became a judge, Coomer removed himself from those roles and inserted his wife into them.
Coomer had been under investigation since 2020 and, after lots of legal kvetching, the Supreme Court last year — after its own foot dragging — removed him from the bench.
But the Supremes, who are known to be a tough bunch, were merciful in Coomer’s case, now that he’s been defrocked. The high court voted unanimously not to disbar him and, in essence, suspended his law license for nine months.*
*He is suspended only until next August. He got a two-year nunc pro tunc sentence. That’s Latin, meaning he got 15 months of “time-served” credit for not practicing law since being removed from the bench in August of 2023. I must point out that suspended-Judge Coomer was paid to sit at home between late 2020 and August 2023, a period prolonged by his denials and legal battles in a failed effort to save his robed status. He “earned” more than $460,000 during this time. Actually $600,000 with benefits. Also, the state had to pay fill-in judges to replace him.
Credit: Natrice Miller / Natrice.Miller@ajc.com
Credit: Natrice Miller / Natrice.Miller@ajc.com
The Supreme Court’s leniency last week seems outrageous, but not unexpected.
Simply put, the Supreme Court’s legal basis was homo habet manducare — “a man’s gotta eat.”
The justices figured that Coomer, at age 50, is still a youngish fellow and they seemingly thought it distasteful that a former judge just one rung from their status would have to reinvent himself as a real estate agent or Uber driver.
Besides, Coomer, who was the Republican Majority Whip in the state House when he was appointed judge, apparently still has clout. Several of his former legislative colleagues peppered the court with letters telling the justices what a swell guy he is at heart.
Anne Emanuel, the former associate dean of Georgia State University’s law school, expressed a common opinion I kept hearing this week concerning the case.
“Given the serious nature of his repeated conduct, he got the friends-and-family treatment both from the State Bar and the Supreme Court,” she said.
The Supreme Court was well aware of Coomer’s actions, having considered the case twice before his ouster as a judge.
This time, the court was considering him merely as a lawyer. A State Bar special master had heard his case and determined his law license should be suspended for two years.
In its decision, the Supreme Court noted the Bar investigation found that:
— Coomer “acted with a dishonest and selfish motive.”
— His actions were “intentional acts by a lawyer with substantial experience.”
— The elderly man, who was lonesome and depressed, “was a vulnerable victim.”
— It was “abundantly clear” Coomer “preyed upon his trust and took advantage” of his client.
But.
The Supreme Court found in mitigation that Coomer:
— Had no prior disciplinary actions.
— “Expressed genuine remorse.”
— “Is otherwise a person of good character and reputation.”
— “Had taken to atone for his mistakes.”
Let me pause here to quibble on words. There is really a difference between “mistakes” and “intentional acts.”
Credit: AP
Credit: AP
One of his lawyers, Mark Lefkow, chided me saying that Coomer was not found to have committed fraud, is worthy of redemption and that I was beating up on a fellow who’s already been through enough.
He said the “findings” noted above “were opinions as to what they found the facts to be.”
I suppose the attorney considers the bad stuff to be “opinions” and the good stuff to be “facts.”
“It was like one of those days of your life that you wish you could take back,” Lefkow said. “You can judge him on his worst day or on his body of work.”
Again, the investigation found more than one day of misdeeds. Several more.
I’ve covered decades of trials and after nearly every case the defendant stands before the judge, hair combed, head lowered and wearing librarian’s glasses. “That’s not me,” they say.
Or, “That was the only time I waved a gun at a bank teller.”
The Supreme Court noted some folks might think they were giving Coomer a cakey deal. But, they added, they shouldn’t treat him more harshly than any other lawyer done wrong.
I’ve talked with several attorneys, former Gov. Roy Barnes and former judicial watchdog Lester Tate to name a couple, and they say they’ve represented lawyers who did less and were punished more.
I called Wright Gammon, the attorney for the old fellow taken advantage by Coomer. He’s the guy who filed suit and brought all this nastiness to light.
“It took a couple years for him to become contrite,” Gammon told me. “It took him several trips around the water trough before he took a drink.”
About the Author
