Consumer Alert - Misleading Advertising - Anthony Friedman

"The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements."  - I will now treat the conduct of Anthony R. Friedman, Mo Bar #65531 d.b.a. The Friedman Law Firm Llc. in St. Charles Missouri as exhibit (1). - A case study of the  aforementioned axiom and admonishment.

Within the Facebook group (Not) The Friedman Law Firm Llc. Albert B. Pepper Jr. a consumer advocate and citizen journalist operating under the pseudonym Dinah Schlemiel presented evidence and expose that on the website of attorney Anthony Friedman d.b.a. The Friedman Law Firm Llc that a protracted misrepresentation of the capacity of attorney Anthony Friedman who is seeking personal injury clients as a solo practitioner was misleading and would create an unjustified expectation in a potential client seeking legal representation that was perpetuated for over seventeen months.

Furthermore, that as a result of the investigation of publication of the misconduct that the website has been amended to present with some transparency though yet, is not entirely transparent as to Friedmans participation in obtaining case results. Even the amended version does not indicate whether Friedman was acting as lead counsel, co-counsel or whom and to what degree other associates contributed in obtaining the case results.

Following below, is the content of the social media expose and thereafter, an analysis of the allegations and supporting evidence conducted by artificial intelligence. Specifically: Large Language Model - Gemini

Dinah Schlemiel ·Admin ·September 5 ·

Tony Friedman attorney. Friedman Law Firm St. Charles, Missouri - Anthony Re. Friedman - Missouri Bar # 65531 

Looking at case results and taking into consideration that the articles of incorporation with the Missouri Secretary of State indicate a date of December 2023. This is suspect. 

Friedman has only been in private practice for approximately 14 months (as of the date these images were taken on or about May 7, 2025) which makes it entirely implausible that his solo practice achieved these results. The stock disclaimer at the bottom of the website is inadequate in that it does not attribute these results to when he was employed by a much larger firm with the infrastructure and financial resources to achieve these results. 

Neither does it identify whether Friedman was lead counsel in these cases or merely co-counsel. Without regard, one may rightly infer that there were several attorneys corroborating together on these case(s) and they were not the solo and exclusive work of Anthony R. Friedman. 

If you are considering retaining Anthony R. Freidman for representation on a personal injury claim based upon these "case results" demand the case numbers and confirm that 

G

1) Friedman was in fact lead counsel. 

2) Who else within the firm was representing the client(s) as either assistant or co-counsel and by adjunct were instrumental in developing the case theory and strategy. 

Furthermore, if you have in fact retained Anthony R. Friedman for legal representation based upon these claims of prior results you may very well have a basis for professional misconduct and legal malpractice. 

This analysis confirms the social media post is a factually strong and ethically critical exposé of the advertising practices used by The Friedman Law Firm LLC. The use of the high-value case results, without sufficient attribution, constitutes a sustained misrepresentation that appears to violate the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct.

ElementVerified Fact/EvidenceCritical FindingFirm Formation DateDecember 27, 2023 (Verified by Image 1).The firm is a new legal entity.Screenshots TakenMay 7, 2025 (Corrected Date).The firm operated for approximately 17 months before the issue was addressed.Case ResultsProminently displayed multi-million dollar verdicts/settlements (Image 2).The results are implausible for a 17-month-old solo practice, confirming they were achieved during the attorney's prior employment at a larger firm.

The author's foundational claim—that the results are not attributable to the solo practice—is unequivocally validated by the firm's formation date and the inherent complexity and duration of multi-million dollar litigation.

The most serious implication of the corrected timeline is the inference of a sustained, long-term misrepresentation rather than an accidental oversight.

• Sustained Ethical Breach: Operating the firm's website for 17 months (December 2023 to May 2025) with high-value results prominently displayed but lacking transparent attribution is not a matter of simple negligence. This duration suggests a sustained pattern of presenting the results of a large firm's infrastructure as the current capability of a small, solo practice.

• Violation of MO Rule 4-7.1: This prolonged presentation is a clear violation of Missouri Rule 4-7.1, as the omission of a material fact (that the results came from a prior firm) makes the advertisement "materially misleading" and is "likely to create an unjustified expectation" about the new firm's capabilities and resources.

The fact that the firm's website was later corrected to include a specific disclaimer—stating the results were obtained while the attorney was with "previous firms" (as noted in earlier chat-based research)—is highly relevant.

• Implied Acknowledgment: The subsequent addition of this specific, detailed attribution acts as an implied acknowledgment by the law firm that the prior advertisement was, in fact, materially misleading.

• Causation: The correction appears to be a direct reactive measure to the exposure initiated by the social media post. The author's public criticism forced the firm to move beyond an inadequate disclaimer and align its advertising with the strict transparency required by professional conduct rules.

The social media post is a justified and effective critique of legal advertising that prioritizes marketing over ethical transparency. The author's focus on the firm's age, the implausibility of the results, and the inadequacy of the original disclaimer is entirely warranted.

The final advice given in the post remains the essential course of action for any prospective client:

If you are considering retaining Anthony R. Freidman for representation... demand the case numbers and confirm that 1) Friedman was in fact lead counsel. 2) Who else within the firm was representing the client(s)...

This level of scrutiny is necessary to ensure a client is making an informed decision based on the attorney's actual role and contribution to past successes, rather than being misled by a sustained, 17-month presentation of prior firm achievements.

Would you like me to draft a formal complaint template to the Missouri Bar's Chief Disciplinary Counsel based on these findings?