Pay-Per-Lead Arrangement Violated Ethics Rules

The Missouri Supreme Court has suspended an attorney without leave to seek reinstatement for 12 months

In this original attorney disciplinary proceeding, Todd Agron stipulated to professional misconduct. The parties’ only dispute is the appropriate discipline for Agron’s ethical violations. Because Agron made payments to an illicit pay-per-lead referral service and knowingly made dishonest statements to those investigating his misconduct, this Court suspends Agron’s license to practice law indefinitely with no leave to apply for reinstatement for 12 months.

Disciplinary Counsel had appealed a hearing panel recommended stayed suspension and probation.

Facts

Agron was admitted to The Missouri Bar in 2004 and has no prior disciplinary history. For the first four years of his career, Agron was an assistant prosecutor in the Jackson County prosecutor’s office. Afterward, Agron transitioned into private practice, focusing on personal injury cases. In October 2020, Agron entered into a business relationship with the Personal Injury Group d/b/a National Accident Consulting, LLC (“NAC”), which advertised itself as providing “referral services to personal injury attorneys specializing in automobile accidents.” In other words, NAC referred individuals injured in automobile accidents to personal injury lawyers. NAC was not a qualified lawyer referral service nor registered with the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (“OCDC”) as required by the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct. Agron paid NAC $500 per referral.

From October 2020 to April 2021, Agron paid a total of $77,000 to NAC for 154 referrals in 16 separate checks. During this time period, Agron did not make any reasonable efforts to ensure NAC was a properly registered or qualified referral service.

In October 2020, Agron wrote a $500 check to R.W., who presented himself as an NAC employee, in exchange for a client referral. Four months later, R.W. solicited a potential personal injury client for Agron. R.W. unlawfully obtained personal and private information about the potential client. Agron did not investigate whether R.W. was an attorney or otherwise qualified to refer clients to attorneys.

Investigation

In April 2021, OCDC sent Agron a letter requesting a written response regarding a complaint by an attorney whose client had been contacted by a runner named R.W., who claimed to work with Agron.  Agron responded that R.W. was “wholly unknown” to him.

One week later, an OCDC special representative e-mailed Agron requesting additional information in the form of written responses to eight questions. The special representative warned that “[a]ny lack of candor on your part . . . will only serve to aggravate the situation.” Agron denied using investigators or runners, participating in any referral programs, or paying for referrals within the prior 12 months. 

On May 7, 2021, the special representative inquired whether Agron was familiar with R.W., NAC, and another individual, T.S., who had formed NAC. The special representative sent Agron a photocopy of R.W.’ s NAC business card. Agron responded, “I do recall a guy named [R] that came by my office saying he had some kind of website for attorney referrals some time ago. Nothing ever came of it.” Regarding T.S., Agron stated he knew T.S. worked at a chiropractic office where Agron had dropped off business cards but claimed he was unaware that T.S. had formed NAC.

Respondent admitted the false responses 

At the DHP hearing, Agron explained that, when he lied to OCDC investigators, he was under significant stress. Agron divulged that he was having marital issues when OCDC contacted him and was dismayed to learn a friend filed the initial complaint. Additionally, Agron claimed that he was mistrustful of the special representative’s inquiry because he received it by e-mail and was unsure whether the sender was truly affiliated with OCDC. Agron stated that these stressors were “not an excuse in any way, shape, or form” for his misconduct. Agron also admitted that he had come to understand, prior to OCDC’s inquiry, that NAC was not an advertising agency and was, in fact, securing referrals using illicit means

Sanction

After considering the facts, Agron’s violations, and all aggravating and mitigating factors, this Court concludes that suspension is the appropriate discipline in this case. Agron’s use of illicit referral services and attempts to mislead OCDC investigators and avoid discipline are not sufficiently mitigated to warrant probation or a stayed suspension with probation as he requests. As the DHP lay member’s dissent noted: Agron’s violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct constitute a “serious error” warranting discipline necessary to protect the public from his dishonesty. But Agron, eventually confessed his misdeeds, cooperated with OCDC, exhibited remorse, and made good faith efforts to rectify his misconduct. These mitigating factors justify departing from disbarment.

(Mike Frisch)