Mo. Bar complaint naming Anthony R. Friedman as respondent

As a result of the multitude acts of professional misconduct perpetrated by Anthony R. Friedman Mo. Bar # 65531 now d.b.a The Friedman Law Firm Llc. St. Charles Missouri while he was acting as lead counsel in the matter of Pepper v. Gelfand and proceeding thereafter after his withdrawal of representation and departure from The Simon Law Firm P.C. it behooves me to proceed with a formal complaint with the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State of Missouri seeking any and all disciplinary remedies at their disposal.

The bar complaint has been in crafting for several months and is to be exhaustive, comprehensive and actionable. The reason for the protracted extent of time in it's development is that the multitude acts of professional misconduct were not a single event but rather, a chronic pattern over the course of over four years and each allegation be documented with citations of the rules of professional conduct that were violated and the supporting documentation and evidence that supports the allegations. 

I have set a date of no later than December 31, 2025 for submission.

At this time I present for your consideration the first allegation of professional misconduct which can be ascribed to an act of misfeasance and the citations that define the professional misconduct. Below is a textual rendering of the text embedded at the top left of the page presented as exhibit (1)

Statement of Facts

1. On or about xx/xx/xxx respondent met with complainant at complainant's residence for case evaluation. At the conclusion of evaluation, the respondent stated: "We are definitely taking this to trial." "We are looking at ten to twenty times punitive damages of compensatory damages." Respondent further went on to say that he could successfully argue that the statutory caps on compensatory damages would not apply because the injury occurred before the statutory caps were codified into law.

Argument

1. Respondent created in the mind of complainant "unjustified expectations" that perpetuated over a three year period during litigation in violation of Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct see; rule(s) 4-1.1, 4-1.4, 4-8.4. see; exhibit(s) 1.0

Upon review of this one of several allegations you may rightly conclude that the exhaustive nature of the complaint and it's presentation must be perfected and credible if it is to be actionable.