Criminal Acquittal But Discipline Imposed

The Missouri Supreme Court has ordered a six-month suspension of an attorney admitted in 1977 without automatic reinstatement and rejected probation for the conduct at issue

Neill became licensed to practice law in Missouri in September 1977 and has no prior disciplinary history. At all relevant times, he has been a sole practitioner with a general practice. Neill represented A.C. at various times beginning in 2003 and ending in November 2018.

In September 2018, an encounter took place between Neill and A.C. in Neill’s office. OCDC and Neill stipulated there are two versions of the September 2018 encounter. A.C.’s version is that Neill grabbed her hand and started rubbing it across his genitals on the outside of his clothing. A.C. pulled her hand away. A.C. could tell Neill was semi-aroused. Prior to A.C. leaving Neill’s office that day, Neill again grabbed A.C.’s hand in an attempt to place it on his genitals. Neill’s version is that A.C. was at Neill’s office and, while they were standing by the copy machine, Neill and A.C. together joined hands and very briefly together maneuvered their jointly held hands to the area on Neill’s trousers above his genitals and they jointly rubbed that area for a few seconds.

After the September 2018 encounter, Neill continued to represent A.C. Neill’s representation of A.C. ended in late November 2018.

In April 2019, the Circuit Attorney of the City of St. Louis filed an information against Neill. The information alleged Neill committed second-degree sexual abuse during the September 2018 encounter when “[Neill], for the purpose of arousing [his] sexual desire, subjected A.C. to sexual contact through the clothing by placing her hand on his penis without A.C.’s consent.” After a bench trial, Neill was found not guilty. OCDC and Neill stipulated the criminal case against Neill is now closed and further stipulated Neill and A.C. did not have a consensual sexual relationship prior to the commencement of an attorney-client relationship between them.

The attorney stipulated to misconduct before a disciplinary hearing panel

Following the hearing, the DHP found Neill committed multiple instances of professional misconduct under the Rules as stipulated by the parties. The DHP recommended Neill be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law with no leave to apply for reinstatement for one year with the suspension stayed and Neill placed on probation. Neill accepted the DHP decision, but OCDC rejected it.

No probation

This Court’s decision that Neill is not eligible for probation under Rule 5.225(a)(2)(C) is consistent with this Court’s prior cases concerning disbarment. In Kayira, this Court noted “disbarment is the baseline sanction for knowingly converting client funds[.]” 614 S.W.3d at 532; see also Farris, 472 S.W.3d at 563 (“[D]isbarment is the presumptively appropriate discipline for misappropriating client funds.”). It would be absurd for this Court to conclude disbarment is the baseline sanction for financial wrongdoing toward a client by knowingly converting client funds without concluding
disbarment is the baseline or presumptive sanction for the gross personal misconduct of sexual harassment of a client in violation of Rule 4-8.4(g). Because Neill committed “acts warranting disbarment[,]” he is not eligible for probation under Rule 5.225(a)(2)(C).

(Mike Frisch)