The Eagle Has Landed | Anthony R. Friedman, Respondent

The Bar Complaint that has been in preparation by Complainant Albert. B. Pepper Jr. naming Anthony R. Friedman, attorney now d.b.a. The Friedman Law Firm LLC in St. Louis, St. Charles, Missouri has been delivered via U.S.P.S. mail to the office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel an of the Supreme Court of the State or Missouri for review on December 22, 2025

This is a fulfillment of the commitment made by Albert B. Pepper Jr. that the Complaint would be filed no later than December 31,  2025

and the U.S.P.S. issued tracking number # 9505516177835352086606 confirms the delivery.

Now begins the process of the O.C.D.C. review of the complaint and what may follow hereafter -

The Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC) of the Supreme Court of Missouri has now received the complaint against attorney Anthony R. Friedman.

The review process typically proceeds as follows:

1. Initial Evaluation — A staff counsel at the OCDC will review the complaint to determine if it raises issues that could violate the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct. Complaints are processed in the order received, and this step may take some time depending on the office's workload.
2. Notification and Response — If the complaint appears to warrant investigation, the attorney (respondent) is typically notified and given an opportunity to respond to the allegations. The complainant may then have a chance to reply to that response.
3. Investigation — The OCDC (or a regional disciplinary committee) conducts further investigation as needed, which may involve gathering evidence, interviews, or subpoenas. This phase determines if there is probable cause for misconduct.
4. Possible Outcomes —
   • If no probable cause is found, the complaint is dismissed (with notification to both parties).
   • For minor issues, alternatives like referral to a complaint resolution program or a written admonition may be considered.
   • If probable cause exists and the matter is serious, formal charges may be filed, potentially leading to a hearing before a disciplinary panel and review by the Supreme Court.

The entire process can vary in length—from months to over a year—depending on complexity, evidence, and backlog. The OCDC focuses on protecting the public and the integrity of the profession, not on resolving private disputes (e.g., malpractice claims, which require separate civil action). For the most accurate updates, contact the OCDC directly at (573) 635-7400 or visit their website (mochiefcounsel.org).

Associated | Relevant Links

https://www.instagram.com/litigant.pro.se.advocate/p/DRmi2MhANdO/?hl=bg 

https://notthefriedmanlawfirmsaintcharles.com/mo-professional-conduct

https://notthefriedmanlawfirmsaintcharles.com/bar-complaint

The complaint that has been filed with the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Missouri naming Anthony R. Friedman as Respondent covers the time that of initial evaluation by Friedman to represent the complainant Albert B. Pepper Jr. in a medical malpractice case between the dates of January 1, 2019 through June 30, 2023 while Friedman was employed with The Simon Law Firm P.C. in St. Louis, Missouri

The complaint is comprehensive and exhaustive citing nine violations of the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct within fifteen separate or co-occurring contexts during representation that include, and are supported by exhibits. Acts on nonfeasance, misfeasance and of particular note, malfeasance. 

Because the complaint is comprehensive and exhaustive the complaint is comprised of thirty seven pages. The preponderance of which are the evidence and attached exhibits. 

As a result, I am at this time going to forgo uploading the entire complaint for your review and consideration until I have prepared an appropriately redacted pdf file for download. I will however at that time upload for your consideration the executive summary for your review presented as follows.

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  

Complaint Against Attorney Anthony R. Friedman (Bar No. 65531)  Submitted by: Albert B. Pepper Jr., Pro Se  

Case Background  

● Representation: Albert Pepper v. Vladimir Gelfand, M.D., Chesterfield MedCenter, et al.,  Case No. 19SL‑CC04680.  

● Jurisdiction: 21st Judicial Circuit, St. Louis County, Missouri. 

 ● Timeline: February 15, 2019 – June 30, 2023.  

● Respondent withdrew following failed mediation and departed The Simon Law Firm P.C.  without adequate notice or protection of client interests.  Core Allegations  

1. Misleading Communications  

● Guaranteed trial and high assurances of punitive damages “10–20 times compensatory”  despite not having any knowledge at time of statement of $1,000,000 policy cap.  

● Failed to correct Complainants unjustified expectations for over three years.  

● Respondent falsely assured Complainant early in litigation that statutory caps could be  successfully argued as inapplicable but reversed this position at mediation without prior  client consultation.  Rules Violated: 4-1.4, 4‑7.1(a), 4‑7.1(b), 4‑8.4(c), 4-8.4(d).  

2. Discovery Failures  

● No spoliation letter sent to defense prior to litigation.  ● Ignored missing medical records noted in deposition.  

● Successor counsel later recovered 81 pages (one‑third of file) critical to malpractice  claim.  

● Failed to competently prepare Complainant and key non-party witnesses for deposition,   

● Failed to protect Complainant and key non-party witnesses in deposition by not raising  timely, waivable objections to the form of questions, thereby allowing prejudicial  testimony to be admitted and permanently preserved against the Complainant.  Rules Violated: 4-1.1, 4-1.3, 4-1.4  3. 

Expert Witness Mismanagement  

● Promised 3–5 sessions; arranged only one phone call.  

● Provided incomplete medical file to expert.  

● Dismissed expert without seeking second opinion, abandoning causation/damages  development.  Rules Violated: 4‑1.1, 4‑1.3, 4‑1.4. 

 4. Dismissal of Client Input  

● Ignored repeated requests for case theory and valuation.  

● Failed to interview ex‑wife and son despite acknowledging urgency.  

● Used a single “case weakness” to pressure settlement, disregarding client’s  counterarguments.  Rules Violated: 4‑1.1, 4‑1.3, 4‑1.4, 4‑8.4(c).  

5. Mediation Misconduct  

● No preparation, demand letter, valuation metrics, or lien/expense calculations.  

● Admitted handling multiple mediations the same day.  

● Failed to clarify mediator’s confidentiality assurance.  

● Volunteered statutory caps, undermining Complainants negotiation strategy, in direct  contradiction to prior assurances that the caps were inapplicable.  

● Disclosed privileged client email to opposing counsel without consent.  Rules Violated: 4‑1.1, 4‑1.3, 4‑1.4, 4‑1.6, 4‑8.4(c), 4‑8.4(d).  

6. Improper Withdrawal  

1. First notice of withdrawal given mid‑mediation.  2. Transferred case to junior associate with no trial experience.  Rules Violated: 4‑1.16(d), 4‑1.4, 4‑1.3, 4‑8.4(c).  

Conclusion  

Respondent’s conduct demonstrates a pattern of negligence, dishonesty, and breach of  fiduciary duty, including:  

● Misleading promises and misrepresentation of the law.  

● Failure to secure critical evidence,  

● Breach of confidentiality, and  

● Abandonment of client at a critical juncture.  

Requested Action: Formal investigation and appropriate discipline to protect the public and  uphold the integrity of the legal profession.  

Respectfully submitted,  

Albert B. Pepper Jr., Pro Se