Kallie Cox//September 26, 2024//
The state supreme court is weighing how to discipline a personal injury attorney who violated the rules of professional conduct by shelling out thousands of dollars for referrals.
Todd Agron, an attorney with Agron Law Office in Kansas City, paid $77,000 for 154 referrals from the Personal Injury Group and paid another $500 to an individual for at least one other referral, according to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC).
In April 2021 the OCDC received a complaint that Agron solicited another attorney’s client and it began to investigate. During the course of the investigation, the chief disciplinary counsel said Agron lied on multiple occasions.
The first of these occurred when the OCDC asked Agron to respond to the initial report it received. He provided a “false response to the OCDC’s opening letter and suggested an improper motive behind the reporting firm’s report,” according to the OCDC’s brief.
Agron then gave false responses to pointed questions asked by investigators in April and provided more false responses to them in May.
In September, with his counsel’s help, Agron submitted a statement of clarification apologizing and explaining his relationship with the referral service.
Investigators learned that the individual Agron paid for a referral, Ralph Willcott, “unlawfully obtained personal and private information about a potential claimant for the purpose of soliciting legal representation.”
Agron admitted to violating “Mo.Sup.Ct.R. 4-5.3 by failing to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the conduct of Mr. Willcott and The Personal Injury Group was compatible with the professional obligations of attorneys under Rule 4.” And he admitted he “violated Mo.Sup.Ct.R. 4-9.1(b) and 4-7.2(c) by participating in an unlawful and improper lawyer referral scheme.”
The OCDC recommended Agron’s suspension.
“Respondent repeatedly lied to disciplinary officials during an investigation into concerns that he might have purchased personal injury cases from two non-approved referral services. After he tried to mislead the investigators by denying any connection with those referral agents, he continued to pay for more referrals,” the OCDC concluded in its brief. “Any mitigating factors are outweighed by aggravating factors and by Respondent’s repeated dishonesty. Probation is not appropriate. An actual indefinite suspension, for at least twelve months, is necessary to preserve the integrity of the profession.”
In Agron’s brief for the court, his attorneys, Robyn M. Butler and Kenneth J. Morton, both of Wallace Sanders, argued that a stayed suspension with a probationary period is a more appropriate discipline.
“Respondent demonstrated several mitigating factors, including the absence of prior discipline in more than 20 years of practice, a cooperative attitude towards the proceedings in this case, good character, the expression of remorse and respondent’s severe personal and emotional stress at the time of the misconduct,” Butler and Morton wrote.
The personal and emotional stress in Agron’s life at the time of the misconduct was caused by problems in his marriage, according to the brief.
Oral arguments in the case were heard on Sept. 25.
“Mr. Agron here knew that his misconduct was wrong but continued to pay for referrals afterward,” Sam Phillips of the chief disciplinary counsel’s office said during the hearing.
Harm has been caused; now the question is how to rehabilitate the profession from the harm Agron’s actions have caused, Phillips told the court.
Agron was represented by Morton during the arguments.
“Mr. Agron has been an attorney in Missouri for 20 years and this is his first and hopefully will be his only experience with the disciplinary system,” Morton said.
Agron’s stipulation is before the court and is a mitigating factor on its own because it shows his cooperation with the court, Morton said. Agron shares an office with others who could monitor him to ensure he complies with probation rather than suspension, he said.
The case is: Re: Todd N. Agron, Case no. SC100543.
See also:
Ethics violations or unfortunate circumstances? Missouri Supreme Court to decide lawyer’s case
Attorney disbarred for multiple rule violations
This article credit to MOLawyersMedia