Supreme Court of Missouri
en banc

22 November 2016

Supreme Court Case Nos. SC90933, SC94974 and SC95544
 
 
The chief disciplinary counsel sought discipline against Respondent, Bradford C. Emert, in No. SC90933, alleging violations of Rule 4-1.3, failing to perform work; Rule 4-1.15(c), failing to deposit a trust check promptly; and Rule 4-8.4(d), failing to keep the trust beneficiaries informed. The disciplinary hearing panel reviewed the allegations and concluded that said violations occurred. The panel recommended that Respondent, Bradford C. Emert, be reprimanded for said violations. The parties agreed to accept the disciplinary hearing panel recommendation. After reviewing the record, this Court agrees that discipline is warranted, and in case no. SC90933, the Court hereby reprimands Respondent, Bradford C. Emert, and directs that he pay the fee specified by Rule 5.19 and costs.

Subsequently, Respondent, Bradford C. Emert, was suspended from the practice of law for failing to pay his taxes.

The chief disciplinary counsel subsequently filed case no. SC94974, alleging violations of Rule 4-1.4(a) and Rule 5.27 by Respondent, Bradford C. Emert, for his failure to inform his clients of his suspension, to return their files, and to communicate with his clients. The disciplinary hearing panel reviewed the allegations and concluded that said violations occurred. The panel recommended that Respondent, Bradford C. Emert, be placed on probation for a period of two years under terms specified in the panel's report. The parties agreed to accept the disciplinary hearing panel recommendation.

After reviewing the record, the Court finds that Respondent, Bradford C. Emert, violated Rule 4-1.4(a) and Rule 5.27 by failing to inform his clients of his suspension from the practice of law, by failing to return their files, and by failing to communicate with his clients and should be disciplined at such time as he is reinstated to practice law as a member of The Missouri Bar. Upon consideration of these findings, previous decisions of this Court, ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Discipline, and aggravating and mitigating circumstances, at such time as Respondent, Bradford C. Emert, is reinstated to practice law as a member of The Missouri Bar, the Court hereby suspends Respondent, Bradford C. Emert’s, license indefinitely. The suspension will be stayed, and Respondent, Bradford C. Emert, will be placed on probation for a period of two years from the date of this order in accordance with Rule 5.225 and the terms of probation attached to the decision of the Disciplinary Hearing Panel filed herein. Should probation be revoked and the suspension take effect, no petition for reinstatement shall be entertained for a period of two years from the date the suspension becomes effective. Further, the Court directs that the order imposing discipline on Respondent, Bradford C. Emert, in case no. SC94974, include payment of the fee specified by Rule 5.19 and costs at the time his license to practice law is reinstated.

The discipline imposed in case no. SC94974 is contingent on Respondent, Bradford C. Emert, being reinstated to the practice of law. In case no. SC95544, Petitioner, Bradford C. Emert, petitions the Court to be reinstated to the practice of law. After consideration of the entire record, the Court sustains the petition for reinstatement and orders Petitioner, Bradford C. Emert, reinstated as a member of The Missouri Bar in good standing subject to the discipline imposed in case no. SC94974.

 

Note: To view any specific rule provisions cited in this order, please visit the pages for Supreme Court of Missouri Rule 4 and Rule 5. Please be aware the versions of the rules available online are those currently in effect and may have changed since this order issued.