The Missouri Supreme Court on Nov. 1 ordered probation in lieu of suspension for the co-founder of the civil-rights law firm ArchCity Defenders after he made unauthorized purchases on a firm credit card.
The court found that Michael-John Voss had violated a rule of professional conduct barring dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. Based on an earlier recommendation from a disciplinary hearing panel that both parties accepted, Voss was suspended for six months, but the suspension is stayed while he completes one year of probation.
In an information filed last year, the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel alleged that Voss used the credit card to make about $7,700 in “purchases that were unrelated to the business and purpose for which the card was issued,” though the nature of the purchases wasn’t described.
Voss had admitted to ArchCity that he’s misused the card before self-reporting his conduct to OCDC.
ArchCity Defenders said last year that Voss was placed on indefinite unpaid leave from the organization in April 2020 and that he has repaid the money. An ArchCity spokesperson said Voss no longer has any role with the organization.
He had served as its director of special projects and was one of three attorneys who founded the organization in 2009, the same year he earned his law degree from Saint Louis University.
Michael Downey of the Downey Law Group, an attorney for Voss, didn’t return an email seeking comment.
The case is In re: Voss, SC99784.
The Supreme Court also issued orders in several other disciplinary matters:
The agency filed an information earlier this year alleging that Hunt had accepted a client last year on a tax matter but stopped communicating with her. OCDC said Hunt never responded and that she had “apparently abandoned” her practice.
The case is In re: Hunt, SC99739.
The case is In re: Magee, SC99793.
OCDC alleged that Hill accepted payment from two clients seeking to expunge their records, even though the three-year statutory waiting period had not yet run. When the expungements were finally filed, they were dismissed for lack of prosecution.
The case is In re: Hill, SC99787.