Attorneys – Professional Discipline – Acting Without Authorization

The chief disciplinary counsel challenged the disciplinary hearing panel’s recommendation for respondent to be placed on probation with a stayed suspension after respondent attempted to settle a case without authorization and subsequently made misrepresentations to the court. 

Where the baseline sanction for respondent’s conduct was disbarment but respondent had mitigating factors that included no prior disciplinary history, community involvement, cooperation with the disciplinary process and expressing remorse for his actions, the court held that indefinite suspension with a three-year bar on leave to apply for reinstatement warranted departure from the baseline sanction.  

Wilson, J., dissenting: “Petruska committed very serious violations of multiple rules, and a serious disciplinary sanction is warranted. In my view, however, the principal opinion imposes a sanction greater than that necessary to protect the public and the integrity of this profession.” 

Suspended.  

In re: Petruska (MLW No. 82843/Case No. SC100727 – 19 pages) (Supreme Court of Missouri, Fischer, J.) Original disciplinary proceeding. (Laura E. Elsbury, Jefferson City, for petitioner) (Michael P. Downey and Paige A.E. Tungate, St. Louis, for respondent)