Personal Injury Law Advocacy: Meet the Creator and Curator

Within this Supplement I have made inquiry of Google Gemini A.I. a Large Language Model to aggregate the available information and identifiers that are available with regard to the web author, subject Albert B. Pepper Jr.  After making a few corrections and amendments to maintain factual rigor I Albert B. Pepper Jr. certify the accuracy of the content whereas accuracy is paramount to establish accountability and credibility.

A maxim that I employ in my personal and professional conduct is as follows: "My presentation shall remain impeccable and my testimony unimpeachable as I bear every disparaging lash of the examiners scourge."  ~ Albert B. Pepper Jr.

Albert B. Pepper Jr. 

litigant.pro.se.advocate@gmail.com 

Albert B. Pepper Jr. is primarily identified through online self-advocacy and social media presence as a pro se litigant and judicial reform advocate. 

Based on records available through late 2025, his public activity includes:

• Legal Advocacy: He identifies as a "pro se advocate" and has publicly shared sworn affidavits regarding alleged "malfeasance" and malicious conduct by legal professionals, specifically naming individuals like Anthony R. Friedman.
• Social Media Presence: He maintains profiles on platforms like Instagram and Flickr, often using handles such as @litigant.pro.se.advocate to document his claims and legal experiences.
• Location: Records associate him with the St. Louis and St. Charles, Missouri areas, as well as Columbia, Illinois. 

Tell me more about his pro se advocacy

Albert B. Pepper Jr. is a vocal 

pro se litigant whose advocacy focuses on challenging the conduct of legal professionals and judicial officers. His activities are largely documented through public filings and social media platforms where he details his experiences within the legal system.

Key aspects of his pro se advocacy include:

• Judicial and Legal Reform: Pepper frequently uses social media to campaign for judicial reform. He often identifies as a "victim" of legal malpractice and judicial misconduct, sharing documents intended to expose what he describes as "corrupt" practices by specific attorneys and judges in the St. Louis area.
• Specific Legal Filings: In April 2024, he publicly discussed the case of Pepper v. Gelfand, where he filed a post-trial motion acting as a pro se plaintiff. He challenged a specific venire member and moved for an "additur" (an increase in jury award) or a new trial.
• Targeted Allegations: He has released sworn affidavits and public "notices of malfeasance" naming various legal professionals. These documents typically allege malicious conduct, fraudulent misrepresentation, and civil rights violations.
• Social Media Campaigning: He utilizes platforms like Instagram, Facebook, and Flickr to share legal documents and personal narratives, often tagging legal organizations like the St. Louis County Bar Association to bring attention to his claims.

These articles and posts detail Albert B. Pepper Jr.'s pro se advocacy, including his legal challenges and public campaigns for judicial reform.

What specific legal strategies does Albert B. Pepper Jr. employ in his pro se cases?

In his pro se cases, Albert B. Pepper Jr. employs strategies focused on post-trial challenges and the public documentation of alleged misconduct

. His specific legal methods include: 

• Challenging Juror Qualifications: In Pepper v. Gelfand, he utilized post-trial motions to allege that a specific venire member (juror) was unfit for duty based on evidence found in social media presentations.
• Requesting Additurs or New Trials: He has filed motions for an "additur"—a request for a judge to increase a jury’s award—or, in the alternative, a new trial if he believes the original proceedings were compromised by unfit jurors.
• Public Allegations of "Malfeasance": A core part of his strategy involves publishing sworn affidavits and "notices of malfeasance" against legal professionals. For instance, he publicly accused his former counsel of sharing privileged information with the defense during mediated settlement conferences in a medical malpractice case.
• Social Media Advocacy: He frequently uses platforms like Facebook to tag legal organizations (such as the St. Louis County Bar Association) to highlight his filings and bring public attention to his claims of judicial and legal corruption. 

Legal Context Note:

His use of additur is a state-level strategy, as this practice is generally not permitted in U.S. federal courts. His cases primarily occur in the Missouri Twenty-First Judicial District (St. Louis County). 

These articles explain Albert B. Pepper Jr.'s pro se legal strategies focusing on challenging jurors and alleging professional misconduct:

What arguments did Pepper make regarding the venire member's unfitness for duty in *Pepper v. Gelfand*?

In 

Pepper v. Gelfand (Case #19SL-CC04680), Albert B. Pepper Jr. challenged the fitness of a specific venire member (prospective juror) by arguing that their public social media activity demonstrated an inability to remain impartial. 

His primary arguments regarding the juror's unfitness included:

• Social Media Bias: Pepper argued that evidence found in the juror's social media presentations indicated a lack of the required "fitness for duty." He contended that these digital footprints revealed underlying perspectives or biases that should have disqualified the individual during the voir dire process.
• Concealment of Information: A central theme of his challenge was that the juror’s social media activity contained information that was either concealed or not fully disclosed when questioned about their background and impartiality during jury selection.
• Compromised Trial Fairness: He maintained that the inclusion of this specific juror inherently prejudiced the proceedings. He used this as a legal basis to move for an additur (increased damages) or a new trial, asserting that a fair trial is impossible when a juror's latent biases are discoverable through public online platforms but not addressed in court. 

Despite these arguments, the trial court, presided over by Hon. Stanley J. Wallach, denied Pepper’s post-trial motions. Pepper has since used these filings as a primary example in his broader advocacy campaign against what he describes as judicial malfeasance in the St. Louis legal system.

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional. Learn more

What types of information did Pepper cite on social media to support his claim of juror bias?

In Pepper v. Gelfand, Albert B. Pepper Jr. primarily used publicly available social media content to argue that a juror (venire member) had concealed biases that made them unfit for duty.

According to his public legal filings and advocacy statements through late 2025, the information he cited included:

• Political and Social Commentary: Pepper alleged that the juror’s social media presentations revealed deeply held political or social perspectives that were not disclosed during voir dire (jury selection). He argued these perspectives inherently conflicted with the impartiality required for a medical malpractice case.
• Contradictory Public Persona: He highlighted specific posts or "presentations" on social media that he claimed contradicted the juror's sworn answers regarding their background, experiences, and potential for bias.
• Evidence of Latent Bias: He contended that the juror's digital footprint provided a more accurate "fitness for duty" assessment than their courtroom testimony, suggesting the juror's online activity proved they were predisposed to favor the defense.
• Concealment of Online Activity: A major part of his argument was the juror's failure to disclose the existence or nature of these social media profiles when asked about their media consumption or potential influences during the selection process.

Result of Arguments:

While Pepper used this information to move for an additur or a new trial, the presiding judge, Hon. Stanley J. Wallach, denied the motions. On the morning of March 28, 2024 Plaintiff file a post trial motion for additur or in the alternative a new trial having substantial merit a supported the granting of additur or in the alternative a new trial. Hon. Stanley J. Wallach knew that this motion was pending review and ruling whereas on that same morning the case of Pepper v. Gelfand was on the docket for a hearing and at the time of hearing Wallach acknowledge the filing of the plaintiffs pro se motion and gave defense counsel thirty days to respond. 

Plaintiff followed up with two further motions to move the court in favor of plaintiffs motion and motion for a hearing.

How. Stanley J. Wallach did not rule on the primary motion and therefore the primary and subsequent motions were allowed to be administratively denied under Mo. Rule 78.06

All of the case documents and post trial motions and defense responses can be found at this link

 Case.net: 19SL-CC04680 - Case Header 

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional. Learn more

Tell me more about his claims against attorney Anthony R. Friedman

As of late 2025, Albert B. Pepper Jr. has escalated a comprehensive public campaign against attorney 

Anthony R. Friedman (Missouri Bar #65531), alleging systematic professional misconduct during his representation in the medical malpractice case Pepper v. Gelfand. 

Pepper’s primary claims against Friedman include:

• Breach of Attorney-Client Privilege: Pepper alleges the "coup de grace" of Friedman's malfeasance occurred during a June 2023 mediated settlement conference. He claims Friedman shared a privileged email—containing Pepper's own personal case theory—with opposing counsel without consent, effectively sabotaging the mediation.
• Case Abandonment: Pepper asserts that just days after the failed mediation, Friedman left his employer, The Simon Law Firm P.C., on June 30, 2023, leaving Pepper's case to a junior associate with no trial experience. He characterizes this as "client abandonment" and a violation of diligence rules.
• Professional Incompetence: Pepper claims Friedman failed to develop a viable case theory or retain the necessary expert witnesses to describe his injuries before the mediation, leaving him with no negotiating leverage.
• Advertising Misrepresentation: Operating as a "citizen journalist," Pepper has filed complaints against Friedman’s solo practice, The Friedman Law Firm LLC, and platforms like Super Lawyers. He argues that Friedman's current profile is deceptive because it advertises "Rising Star" awards and verdicts achieved with his former firm’s infrastructure, despite now operating as a solo practitioner without professional liability insurance.
• Formal Disciplinary Action: Pepper has publicly stated his intent to file a formal complaint with the Missouri Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC) by December 31, 2025, seeking disciplinary remedies for alleged violations of professional conduct rules regarding conflicts of interest, communication, and diligence. 

Pepper documents these claims through his dedicated advocacy website, Not the Friedman Law Firm Saint Charles, and various social media platforms. 

What evidence does Pepper claim to have?

Here's a response to the question: 

In his advocacy against attorney Anthony R. Friedman, Albert B. Pepper Jr. claims to possess several specific pieces of evidence intended to prove professional malfeasance and deceptive business practices:

• The "Coup de Grace" Email: Pepper claims to have an email he sent to Friedman on June 23, 2023, outlining his own case theory and specific arguments regarding medical causation. He asserts that Friedman admitted to never reading this email before the critical June 26 mediation, where Pepper alleges his interests were betrayed.
• Documentation of "Deceptive" Marketing: Through what he calls "citizen journalism," Pepper claims to have documented evidence that Friedman’s solo practice advertised "significant verdicts and recoveries" that were actually achieved while Friedman was an employee at The Simon Law Firm P.C.. He points to the subsequent "curing" (removal) of these claims from Friedman's website as proof of their initial falsity.
• Sworn Affidavits on Performance: Pepper claims to hold a sworn affidavit (identified as "Exhibit 5") from former colleagues of Friedman who verbally stated in July 2023 that Friedman’s departure from his former firm was due to performance concerns.
• Zoning and Licensing Records: He claims to have evidence that Friedman's solo firm operates from a residential address in violation of local zoning laws, while using a UPS Store P.O. box as a misleading "brick and mortar" business address.
• Public Trial Records: Pepper cites public records from Missouri Case.net as evidence that Friedman has not achieved significant personal injury verdicts as a solo practitioner. He specifically points to a minor Vespa motor scooter title dispute as Friedman's only documented solo trial.
• Lack of Professional Liability Insurance: Pepper asserts that he has confirmed Friedman operates without professional liability insurance, which he argues increases the risk to future clients and potential liability for platforms like Super Lawyers that host his profile. 

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.