George Edward Gerken

George Gerken

I appreciate the writer of the review expressing their opinion and I take every review and client comment seriously. However, there is a difference between opinion and fact. The timing of a case being called for a hearing is confusing for many clients in this county court. The court requires the Defendant to be present at the start of the docket but does not require the attorney to be present until the case is called on the docket as there can be as many as 30 cases scheduled at the same start time. This can be as much as 45 minutes to 1 hour later than the start of the docket. I do not agree to the assertion that I arrived late for the case being called on the docket. I explain this to clients and can state that this is the first time I have heard this complaint. Even during the pendency of the case, no mention of this was made. When I became a criminal law defense attorney I accepted the fact that some clients would not be happy with the court's decision on sentencing as there is no guarantee defense attorneys, or prosecutors, can make on how the court will exercise it's discretion in sentencing. I explain this in detail to every client and review each mitigation argument we intend to make regarding the length of a sentence. When the client is satisfied with statements to be made in mitigation then they will be submitted and the court will make the decision based on the facts, the victim impact statement and the prosecutor's recommendation. All of this was done in this case. Unfortunately, the court did not agree with our recommended sentence. It is important to understand that some crimes in Ohio carry mandatory time and judicial release is not available. As in this case, arguing for, or against, judicial release was not applicable. The request to the court is that since there is no early out through judicial release, the court should sentence at the lower end of the guidelines. Unfortunately, the court rejected this point during the mitigation portion of the hearing due to the egregious acts of the defendant. It appears the writer of this anonymous review did not understand this concept. I see know that I should have tried to communicate this fact clearer and would ask that the writer of the review to contact me so that I could better explain the sentencing phase of this case. I also take the time to explain my policy on returning phone calls or emails to clients. My first response is to the client directly and then to the family members who call. If this client did not feel that I responded timely to requests, then I respect that opinion. As to the competency issue, judges from federal court to many different felony courts in Ohio have assigned to me to serious cases without any concern for my ability to handle these cases. These are the opinions I respect as to my competency to handle cases. In this instance, my client pled guilty and told the court that he was satisfied with my representation, counsel and competency. It appears that after the fact, my client's family is not satisfied.