Missouri Supreme Court disbars St. Charles County attorney

A St. Charles County attorney was disbarred by the state’s highest court after violating several rules of professional conduct.

O’Fallon attorney Michael R. Hanson was disbarred Jan. 13 after the Missouri Supreme Court found he violated Rules 4-1.5(a), 4-1.5(c), 4-1.5(e), 4-1.8(a) 4-1.15 and 4-8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Hanson had operated a solo practice since 1992. In 2019, he began representing a client in criminal and civil matters related to a fatal car accident. They entered into a fee agreement which described the $40,000 in fees owed by the client as a non-refundable retainer.

At the time, the client was selling a mobile home and 20 acres of land and executed a limited power of attorney authorizing Hanson to assist with the transaction and to apply a portion of the proceeds toward legal fees and a cash bond for the criminal case. The bond was ultimately paid by a friend of the client. Hanson deposited the property sale proceeds and mortgage payment into his operating account, which later carried a negative balance, and failed to return funds owed to the client or others on the client’s behalf. When Hanson later received reimbursement for the bond, he deposited those funds into a checking account instead of a client trust account.

Audits of Hanson’s trust, operating and checking accounts from May 2020 through April 2024 found multiple deficiencies, including depositing advance fees and client or third-party funds into non-trust accounts, using client funds for personal expenses, commingling personal and client funds, failing to timely deposit advance fees into a trust account, disbursing settlement funds before collection cleared, maintaining incomplete trust records and failing to timely reconcile trust accounts.

Hanson also handled a workers’ compensation matter on a contingent basis without a written contingency fee agreement and paid another attorney a consulting fee from a client’s settlement despite the attorney assuming no responsibility for the case and without the client’s written consent.

Disciplinary hearings were initiated against Hanson by the Chief Disciplinary Counsel in 2024. Following a hearing, a panel found multiple rule violations and recommended Hanson be suspended indefinitely with no leave to apply for reinstatement for three years. The chief disciplinary counsel argued for disbarment, while Hanson argued he should not be suspended.

Oral arguments were heard in the case Jan. 7. The Chief Disciplinary Counsel was represented during arguments by Natalie Spangler of the counsel’s office in Jefferson City; Hanson was represented by Michael Downey of Downey Law Group in St. Louis.

Spangler said an OCDC informant told Hanson during the first audit that his trust accounts were not in compliance, but that Hanson had acknowledged these issues and had made changes to how he handled his trust accounts and that he was now in compliance.

“This was not true. As informant performed a second audit and took respondent’s sworn statement in April 2024 and respondent had not changed his practices,” Spangler said.

She said that the audits revealed that over $100,000 that should have been deposited into the trust was not.

“Respondent through these actions violated multiple rules of professional misconduct and informant asks this court to not follow the panel’s recommendation and instead disbar respondent,” said Spangler.

Downey acknowledged that this was a case with “serious misconduct.”

“Hanson has admitted that he violated the rules, there’s no question about that. He has admitted that throughout the process,” Downey said, adding however that Hanson had cooperated during the audits, paid restitution and had faced mitigating factors.

“Mr. Hanson is a kind person. He’s someone who attempts to make the profession better. He’s been active in his community,” said Downey. “I think the panel correctly understood and interpreted that based upon these mitigating factors, this is a case where it is appropriate for the court to depart … To say to lawyers if you’ve done wrong, you need to pay restitution, you need to cooperate and we’re going to give those lawyers who engage in such conduct a little bit of a break is appropriate here based upon the facts.”

The court’s Jan. 13 hand down stated, “Upon consideration of these findings, previous decisions of this Court, ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Discipline, and aggravating and mitigating circumstances, it is ordered by this Court that Respondent is hereby disbarred.”

As part of the disbarment order, Hanson must comply with Rule 5.27 and, pursuant to Rule 5.19(k), pay a fee in the amount of $2,000, payable to the Supreme Court Clerk to the credit of the Advisory Committee Fund, taxed to the respondent.

The case is In re: Michael R. Hanson, Case No. SC101303.