In September 2021, this Court suspended attorney Justin Mason from practicing law in Missouri for failure to pay taxes. The following month, Mason applied for reinstatement. The chief disciplinary counsel requested leave to investigate. During that investigation, the chief disciplinary counsel audited Mason’s client trust and operating accounts. The auditor had to request records from Mason multiple times, ask him to organize the records produced, and again ask for missing records. The audit revealed Mason failed to keep both a general ledger and accurate client ledgers. The audit also showed Mason deposited settlement funds into his operating account. In most instances, he then transferred the funds to his trust account, but in other instances, he failed to transfer client funds, instead, paying those clients from other funds in the trust account. Mason claimed he could not make deposits into the client trust account during the COVID pandemic; therefore, he would deposit them in his operating account and transfer them to the trust account. The audit, however, revealed two deposits made directly into the client trust account during that timeframe. Mason also failed to disburse earned fees and expenses for multiple clients and third parties. He also failed to timely pay settlement funds to multiple clients. The audit also established Mason paid personal expenses from his client trust account. The chief disciplinary counsel filed an information alleging multiple trust account violations. At a disciplinary hearing, Mason produced evidence of a significant medical episode occurring in July 2020 for which he was hospitalized and required rehabilitation. The hearing panel found Mason violated multiple rules of professional conduct and recommended he be suspended without leave to apply for reinstatement for two years. In doing so, the hearing panel concluded Mason’s trust account violations started before his medical issues and continued after his rehabilitation was complete. Both Mason and the chief disciplinary counsel rejected the panel’s recommendation. The chief disciplinary counsel asserts disbarment is the appropriate discipline because Mason misappropriated client funds. Mason contends a stayed suspension with probation is the appropriate discipline because his violations were due to negligence, not selfish motive. 

This case presents two questions for this Court – whether Mason violated the rules of professional conduct and, if so, what discipline, if any, is appropriate.