Missouri Hears Discipline Matters
The Missouri Supreme Court heard oral argument Tuesday and Wednesday in bar discipline matters.
The argument in the Hollingsworth case is particularly interesting, involving a pro se Respondent defending alleged misconduct as a prosecutor.
SC100697
In re: Thomas Eagleton Hollingsworth
Jefferson County
Attorney discipline
Access the oral argument: SC100697 MP4 file | SC100697 MP3 file
The chief disciplinary counsel was represented during arguments by Marc Lapp, a special representative of the chief disciplinary counsel’s office in Jefferson City; Hollingsworth, an attorney in Hillsboro, represented himself.
Thomas Eagleton Hollingsworth has been licensed since 2003 and has been an assistant prosecuting attorney for the past 16.5 years. On June 9, 2023, Hollingsworth was on duty at the Jefferson County courthouse. During the docket, because the courtroom is small, the attorneys normally use the jury room to fill out forms, conduct negotiations, or work on their laptops. When a public defender left his computer unattended in the jury room to participate in a felony plea in the courtroom, Hollingsworth decided to prank the attorney, using the attorney’s computer to send an e-mail to the sheriff. Two other defense attorneys were present in the jury room when Hollingsworth sat down at the public defender’s laptop, typed out an e-mail to the sheriff stating “You look sooooo good in Khaki pants and that black shirt,” and signed it with the public defender’s first and last name. Hollingsworth did not tell the sheriff or the public defender what he had done. Instead, he told another attorney coming into the jury room. That attorney later told the public defender to check his e-mail. The public defender had to notify his clients about Hollingsworth having potential access to confidential information, resulting in 19 motions to disqualify Hollingsworth as the prosecutor on cases. The prosecutor’s office gave Hollingsworth a written reprimand and placed him on a six-month performance improvement plan. The chief disciplinary counsel filed an information alleging Hollingsworth violated multiple rules of professional conduct when he sent the e-mail. During a hearing before a disciplinary hearing panel, witnesses testified Hollingsworth has a history of using inappropriate humor and jokes, including sexual innuendos, during working hours. Hollingsworth admitted to some rule violations but claimed he was not acting as a prosecutor when he sent the e-mail and did not believe his actions interfered with the administration of justice. The panel found Hollingsworth’s actions did not interfere with the administration of justice and did not violate the rules of professional conduct on sexual harassment grounds. The panel recommended Hollingworth be reprimanded for his actions. The chief disciplinary counsel rejected the panel’s recommendation and asks this Court to suspend Hollingsworth.
This case presents two questions for this Court – whether Hollingsworth violated the rules of professional conduct and, if so, what discipline, if any, is appropriate.
In re: Paul Eric Petruska
St. Louis County
Attorney discipline
Access the oral argument: SC100727 MP4 file | SC100727 MP3 file
The chief disciplinary counsel, Laura E. Elsbury, represented her office in Jefferson City; Petruska was represented by Michael P. Downey of Downey Law Group LLC in St. Louis.
Paul Petruska was employed as chief trial attorney in Zurich Insurance Company’s major case unit, handling large, catastrophic personal injury claims. This required him to work with Zurich’s claims department, which is responsible for extending litigation expenses for retaining experts and settlement offers. In 2018, Petruska was lead defense counsel representing Zurich’s insured McMahon Ford Company and its employee in a matter in St. Louis. During that representation, Petruska failed to inform Zurich or its claims department that the circuit court sanctioned McMahon when the employee failed to appear for a deposition. Petruska also offered to settle the matter without first obtaining the claims department’s approval. The plaintiffs accepted Petruska’s settlement offer on the basis McMahon also would pay the sanctions amount. Petruska told the claims department the litigation was ongoing and told the plaintiffs payment was delayed as a result of the claims department’s internal inefficiencies. Petruska then sent the plaintiffs’ counsel an empty envelope from his personal FedEx account to make it appear Zurich had issued the settlement check. Petruska obtained the sanctions amount from the claims department by telling an adjustor it was to cover expert expenses. The plaintiffs ultimately sought the circuit court’s intervention in obtaining the settlement monies. Petruska repeatedly appeared before the court and signed orders acknowledging due dates for payment of the settlement. Petruska also attempted to have a McMahon partner advance the funds and sign an agreement. McMahon refused to sign and obtained counsel. During a February 2020 routine review of its pending cases, Zurich discovered Petruska’s actions. At that point, McMahon was subject to paying the settlement amount, post-judgment interest and other fees as well as a pending motion for contempt. Zurich arranged to make the payments on McMahon’s behalf, then fired Petruska. The chief disciplinary counsel later investigated Petruska and alleged he violated multiple rules of professional conduct with respect to the McMahon litigation. A disciplinary hearing panel recommended Petruska be suspended for three years, with the suspension stayed and Petruska placed on probation for three years. The chief disciplinary counsel rejected the panel’s recommendation and asks this Court to suspend Petruska without probation.
This case presents two questions for this Court – whether Petruska violated the rules of professional conduct and, if so, what discipline, if any, is appropriate.
SC100727_chief_disciplinary_counsel_brief
(Mike Frisch)
Posted in: