On Friday, January 12, 2024, Missouri Lawyers Media provided details about the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision regarding St. Louis attorney Joseph Neill. The high court indefinitely suspended Neill without the option to apply for reinstatement early due to inappropriate contact with a client.
According to the report, Neill had been accused of grabbing the hand of a long-time female client and rubbing it against his genital area during a 2018 meeting. While Neill acknowledged physical contact occurred, he claimed they jointly rubbed the outside of his pants above the genital region. Neill entered into a joint stipulation with the Chief Disciplinary Counsel’s Office admitting to violating ethical standards regarding placing his interests above the client’s and conduct prejudicial to the legal system.
The disciplinary hearing board assigned to review the case recommended an indefinite stayed suspension pending one year of probationary supervision, which Neill accepted. However, the disciplinary counsel rejected this recommendation, sending the matter to the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on November 8, 2023.
The Supreme Court directed its attention to the 2022 probation eligibility rules due to the fact that the case was filed in that particular year. According to those rules, a lawyer can be considered eligible for probation if they are unlikely to pose a risk to the public, can be adequately supervised, can practice law without bringing disrepute to the courts or the legal profession, and have not engaged in misconduct that would justify being disbarred.
The Supreme Court specifically focused on the last requirement, emphasizing that Neill’s acknowledged violations of the court rules do indeed justify disbarment. It’s important to note that Neill has not yet been disbarred, but this fact is not the central issue, as stated in Judge Ginger K. Gooch’s unanimous opinion. Judge Gooch explained that mitigating circumstances, such as Neill’s cooperation and absence of previous disciplinary actions, might be taken into account in determining whether disbarment is appropriate in a particular case. However, these factors do not alter the fact that Neill’s actions warrant disbarment.
The report further noted Neill had been acquitted in a separate criminal case charging second-degree sexual abuse relating to the client interaction. Neill’s attorney, Rick Wuestling of Roberts Perryman law firm, declined to provide a comment on the Supreme Court’s opinion when contacted by Missouri Lawyers Media.
Source: Missouri Lawyers Media
