The Missouri Supreme Court is considering whether a personal injury attorney violated Rules of Professional Conduct for allegedly participating in an improper lawyer referral scheme and, if so, determining what sanction would be appropriate.
The Missouri court heard oral arguments Wednesday in an attorney disciplinary case involving Todd N. Agron, who maintains a private practice in Kansas City and allegedly paid nearly $77,000 for 154, or $500 per referral, to runners working with a referral service, the Personal Injury Group. In April 2021, the chief disciplinary counsel confronted Agron after he allegedly solicited another attorney’s client.
Agron allegedly made numerous misrepresentations, denying making payments to any referral services or having any involvement with the Personal Injury Group. Agron later admitted to paying for referrals, according to the allegations. In 2023, Missouri’s chief disciplinary counsel accused Agron of violating multiple rules of professional conduct as a result of the referral scheme, and Agron admitted he paid for some referrals when asked to provide access to his bank statements.
Following a hearing, a disciplinary panel recommended that Agron be suspended indefinitely with no leave to file for reinstatement for six months. It then recommended the suspension be stayed during a probationary period.
Disciplinary counsel disagreed. Sam Phillips, deputy chief counsel based in Jefferson city, argued for an indefinite suspension. According to counsel’s brief, Agron repeatedly lied to disciplinary officials and violated Rule 4-8.1(a), 4-8.4(c), and 4-8.4(d) by providing knowingly false explanations in three written responses. Due to this dishonestly, the counsel argued for a punishment of an actual indefinite suspension, for at least twelve months, in order to preserve the integrity of the profession.
The court did not interject to question Phillips during his arguments, where he maintained Agron should be suspended, as his violations relating to payment for referrals through an unapproved referral service, and his dishonesty with the disciplinary authorities.
Agron accepted the disciplinary panel’s recommendation. On Wednesday, his counsel, Kenneth Morton of Wallace Saunders in Lee’s Summit, Missouri, argued Agron’s suspension should be stayed during a one-year probationary period.
In support of the stay, Morton argued Agron deserves a chance to be on probation, citing the lack of other complaints, his long track record, the remorse and acceptance of responsibility he has shown, as well as his eventual cooperation. According to Morton, in Agron’s 20 years of being an attorney, he never had a client submit a complaint.
While Morton stressed Agron’s clean record was one reason he should only receive probation, Justice Zel M. Fischer raised some doubts.
“What about the fact that he continued doing this inappropriate behavior once he realized he was being investigated for it?” Fischer said. “That seems to suggest to me that maybe that’s not something probation can fix.”
Morton acknowledged that was a significant fact, guessing that may be one of the reasons the recommended discipline was so severe. However, he noted the complaints weren’t submitted by a client and that no client has ever submitted clients about Agron.
He argued that the court needed to have some faith and hope, sharing his belief that Agron can be monitored, as he shares an office with other attorneys, and an attorney has already agreed to monitor his practice. Morton claimed that in cases where suspension is not stayed, there are more significant factors that pose a threat to the public and throw the profession into disrepute, than the factors in Agron’s case.
In support of his probation argument, Morton cited the court’s 2016 in In re Krigel, in which Sanford P. Krigel was suspended for six months after he knowingly provided false evidence in representations he made in a custody dispute between the parents of an unborn child.
According to Morton, the cases involved similar conduct, including misrepresentations and falsehoods, but Krigel’s misrepresentations were more significant than Agron’s, especially in terms for potential harm to the public and the father of the child.
“Didn’t they also put great weight on the fact that Mr. Krigel had served at the family court for over 30 years, and that’s very specialized area providing a valuable service to that court?” Justice W. Brent Powell questioned.
Morton agreed, saying great weight was placed on Krigel’s experience. Powell questioned if there were similar facts in the presence case.
Morton claimed there are more mitigating factors for Agron, pointing to his eventual cooperation.
“Well also, to distinguish this case from Krigel, in this case, your client lied repetitively to the office of chief disciplinary counsel. Mr. Krigel did not,” Chief Justice Mary R. Russell said. “That’s a huge aggravator.”