SC96215
Antioch Community Church v. The Board of Zoning Adjustment of the City of Kansas City, Missouri
Clay County
Challenge to denial of variance for digital signage
Listen to the oral argument: SC96215 MP3 fileSC96215 MP3 file
The church was represented during arguments by Bernard Rhodes of Lathrop & Gage LLP in Kansas City; the board was represented by Deputy City Attorney M. Margaret Sheahan Moran of the city attorney’s office in Kansas City.

Antioch Community Church is located in a single-family residential neighborhood zoned as such with commercial zones nearby. Using a bequest, the church in 2010 installed a digital sign inside its existing brick “monument sign” on its property. A year later, the city served the church with notice it was in violation of a city code permitting illuminated monument signs but no form of digital or electronic display. The church appealed to the city’s board of zoning adjustment and then sought a variance to allow the church to install the digital display on its existing monument sign. It argued, in part, the digital display would allow the church to change its message more frequently and more conveniently, in a more readable format, without its members going into inclement weather to change the signage. The church also presented evidence from the local neighborhood association. The board denied the variance, determining the city code prohibits the board from permitting a digital sign in a residential zone and finding the church did not prove “practical difficulties” or undue hardship justifying the variance. The church appeals.

This appeal presents two primary questions for the Court. One is whether the board was permitted to and should have granted a non-use variance permitting the church to install the digital display. Related issues include whether the church showed “practical difficulties” in complying with the city’s code or that the church property is unique; whether any feasible alternative was available; and whether the variance was substantial, would change the neighborhood and was in the interest of justice. Another question is whether the board’s application of the city’s sign ordinance violated the church’s First Amendment rights by allowing less protected commercial speech such as gasoline pricing to be displayed digitally but not more protected religious speech such as messages the church wished to display digitally.

SC96215_Antioch_Community_Church_brief
SC96215_KC_board_of_zoning_adjustment_brief
SC96215_Antioch_Community_Church_reply_brief



SC96278
Keith Meiners v. State of Missouri
St. Louis County
Challenge to denial of postconviction relief
Listen to the oral argument: SC96278 MP3 file
Meiners was represented during arguments by Lisa Stroup of the public defender’s office in St. Louis; the state was represented by Shaun Mackelprang of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.

The state charged Keith Meiners with first-degree murder for the beating death of his girlfriend’s ex-boyfriend. The case was tried before a jury in April 2013. The state offered verdict-directing instructions for first- and second-degree murder; Meiners offered verdict-directing instructions for voluntary manslaughter and first-degree involuntary manslaughter. The circuit court submitted only the instructions for first- and second-degree murder to the jury, which found Meiners guilty of second-degree murder. The circuit court entered judgment accordingly and sentenced him to 25 years in prison. After his conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal, Meiners sought post-conviction relief. He alleged his appellate counsel failed to challenge, on appeal, the circuit court’s refusal to give the jury the manslaughter instructions he offered. After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court denied relief, determining appellate counsel was not ineffective because the evidence at trial would not have supported the manslaughter instructions. 

This appeal presents one primary question for the Court – whether the circuit court should have granted postconviction relief and whether Meiners was prejudiced because it did not. The related issue is whether there was evidence at trial for the jury to acquit Meiners of murder and convict him instead of the lesser-included offenses of either voluntary or involuntary manslaughter.

SC96278_Meiners_brief
SC96278_State_brief
SC96278_Meiners_reply_brief

Note: The following three cases arise from the same set of facts, were consolidated before a disciplinary hearing panel and will be summarized together, below.

SC96271
In re: Robert B. Leggat Jr.
St. Louis County
Attorney discipline

Listen to the oral argument: SC96271 MP3 file
The chief disciplinary counsel, Alan Pratzel, represented his office in Jefferson City during arguments; Leggat was represented by Anthony Behr of Behr, McCarter & Potter PC in Clayton.

SC96271_Chief_Disciplinary_Counsel_brief
SC96271_Leggat_brief



SC96272
In re: Lamar E. Ottsen Jr.
St. Louis County

Attorney discipline
Listen to the oral argument: SC96272 MP3 file
The chief disciplinary counsel, Alan Pratzel, represented his office in Jefferson City during arguments; Ottsen was represented by Anthony Behr of Behr, McCarter & Potter PC in Clayton.

SC96272_Chief_Disciplinary_Counsel_brief
SC96272_Ottsen_brief



SC96268
In re: Timothy Belz
St. Louis County

Attorney discipline
Listen to the oral argument: SC96268 MP3 file
The chief disciplinary counsel, Alan Pratzel, represented his office in Jefferson City during arguments; Belz was represented by Anthony Behr of Behr, McCarter & Potter PC in Clayton.

SC96268_Chief_Disciplinary_Counsel_brief
SC96268_Belz_brief

 

Robert Leggat Jr., Lamar Ottsen and Timothy Belz are principals of a St. Louis law firm and are signatories on the firm’s trust account in which they maintain their clients’ funds. In March 2015, the bank notified the chief disciplinary counsel’s office that the law firm’s trust account was overdrawn. Following an investigation and audit of the trust account, the chief disciplinary counsel’s office concluded a member of the law firm’s landlord’s cleaning staff misappropriated approximately $22,500 from the firm’s trust account through a series of unauthorized electronic withdrawals from the firm’s trust account between August 2014 and March 2015. According to the investigation, no one in the firm had reconciled the trust account’s bank statements since October 2011, allowing the unauthorized withdrawals to go unnoticed. When the firm notified the bank the withdrawals were unauthorized, the bank reversed the unlawful charges and restored the funds. The chief disciplinary counsel’s office began disciplinary proceedings against all three attorneys, alleging they violated Rule 4-1.15 by depositing earned fees into the trust account, failing to withdraw earned fees from the trust account in a timely manner and failing to deliver promptly to clients funds they were entitled to receive, all resulting in personal and client funds being commingled in the trust account. The office further alleged the attorneys failed to reconcile the trust account after receiving bank statements. Following a hearing on largely stipulated facts, the panel found the attorneys had violated Rule 4-1.15 and ultimately recommended the attorneys be reprimanded. The chief disciplinary counsel’s office rejected the recommendation and now asks this Court to suspend the attorneys, stay the suspensions and place them on probation.

These cases present two questions for the Court – whether the attorneys violated the rules of professional conduct and, if so, what discipline, if any, is appropriate.