Featured and reposted from:
Facebook: (Not) Anthony R. Friedman Attorney St. Louis : https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Kzp2NqmC1/
Gettr: https://gettr.com/post/p42dilf87d9
Though I make no statement of fact Anthony R. Friedman Mo. Bar #65531 is in a precarious situation with an open investigation by the Office Of Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court Of Missouri (File #25-2531-X)
The allegations of professional misconduct with regard to multiple violations of the Missouri Model Rules Of Professional Conduct (Rule 4) being investigated by the O.D.C. (Rule 5) require that Friedman present to the O.C.D.C. exercising absolute candor with the tribunal.
The issue is that certain of the most egregious and injurious violations that impacted his client Albert B. Pepper Jr. occurred while he was employed with The Simon Law Firm P.C. acting as lead counsel in the matter of Pepper v Gelfand M.D. (Case #19SL-CC04680) and revolve around a mediated settlement agreement conference held at The Simon Law Firm P.C. on June 26, 2023 wherein it is alleged that Friedman shared privileged information with opposing counsel that undermined his clients case just days before his departure from The Simon Law Firm on June 30, 2023.
Those who were in attendance during the m.s.a. conference on June 26, 2023 were the following:
Albert B. Pepper Jr. – plaintiff
Anthony R. Friedman Mo. Bar #65531 – lead counsel
Elizabeth C. McNulty Mo. Bar #72026 – successor lead counsel
Randall A. Bauman Mo. Bar #42616 – defense counsel
Ted Osburn Mo. Bar #33224 – mediator
Paul Schoenlaub Mo. Bar #38125 – President, Missouri Doctors Mutual
What makes the situation so precarious for Friedman is that during the O.C.D.C. investigation of Anthony R. Friedman testimony and notes of the m.s.a. conference will be aggregated and there may be a high degree of likelihood that Friedmans testimony is will not be corroborated by the testimony and note of the other parties in attendance.
Now comes: Elizabeth C. McNulty Mo. Bar #72026 who was also in attendance at the m.s.a conference on June 26, 2023. – A formal complaint to be submitted to the Office Of Chief Disciplinary Counsel for investigation naming McNulty as Respondent will open another vector of investigation into the conduct of both Friedman and McNulty of which Friedman will have absolutely no control.
Furthermore, Friedman being dismissed from The Simon Law Firm P.C. on June 30, 2023 is of no strategy or brand value for The Simon Law Firm. – He very plausibly may be used as “the scape goat”. a bad actor who went “Rogue” in an attempt to mitigate the vicarious liability of The Simon Law Firm. – The Simon Law Firm does have an interest in preserving the ethical defense of McNulty who is yet under the employ of Simon Law.
Below is a further treatment of the “plausible” consideration of The Simon Law Firm P.C. in this matter:
Friedman’s realistic options are constrained, and the “rogue actor” narrative is the path of least resistance for Simon Law.
Why Simon Law has strong incentive to distance itself
From the public materials Pepper has put out, Friedman’s departure from The Simon Law Firm occurred around June 30, 2023.
Pepper claims (via affidavit and public posts) that at least two former colleagues later told him Friedman left because of a weak trial record (“lost seven of eight”).
The timing and the fact that Friedman is now a solo practitioner running The Friedman Law Firm LLC create clear separation.
Simon Law has no institutional interest in defending Friedman’s conduct during the Pepper v. Gelfand representation. Doing so would risk:
- Pulling the firm, John G. Simon, McNulty, and others deeper into the OCDC orbit.
- Creating discovery or testimony problems if Pepper later files a legal malpractice suit against the firm.
- Reputational spillover onto a firm that markets large verdicts and high-profile results.
The cleanest institutional response is therefore the one described: Friedman acted outside the firm’s norms or without adequate supervision, and his departure already addressed the personnel issue. That framing protects the firm while leaving Friedman to answer for his own file.
With regard to the conduct that the Mediated Settlement Agreement conference there is the testimony of six different witnesses with regard to the conduct, misconduct of Anthony R, Friedman and the plausibility of at least one, if not more witness implicating and by either conclusive or preponderance of the evidence will certify and support the model rule violations cited in the O.C.D.C. complaint submitted by Albert B. Pepper Jr. naming Anthony R. Friedman as Respondent.
Albert B. Pepper Jr. d/b/a/ Phoenix Rising Productions LLC. A member in good standing of The Society of Professional Journalists – 2026
#anthonyrfriedman #elizabethcmcnulty #randallabauman #tedosburn #paulschoenlaub #thesimonlawfirmstl #missouridoctorsmutual #osburnhinesyates #stlmetrobar #missourilawyersmedai #missouriassociationoftrialattorneys #officeofchiefdisciplinarycounsel #wlastl #thebarplan #stllegal
Markdown:
“Friedman Went Rogue” | Anthony R. Friedman Legal Misconduct Allegations & Investigation Analysis
Featured and Reposted From:
- Facebook: (Not) Anthony R. Friedman Attorney St. Louis
- Reddit: Discussion on Reddit
- Gettr: Read the Gettr Post
Overview: The OCDC Investigation of Attorney Anthony R. Friedman
Note: The following details reflect ongoing claims and administrative proceedings. While no statement of fact is made, Anthony R. Friedman (Tony Friedman / Anthony Friedman / Anthony Re. Friedman) (Missouri Bar #65531) is currently navigating a precarious regulatory situation involving an open investigation by the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC) of the Supreme Court of Missouri (File #25-2531-X).
The allegations involve professional misconduct regarding multiple potential violations of Rule 4 (Missouri Model Rules of Professional Conduct) under the disciplinary oversight of Rule 5. The rules dictate that an attorney in this stance must present to the OCDC exercising absolute candor with the tribunal.
Key Entities & Geographic Locations
Individual & Entity Directory
- Anthony R. Friedman (also known as Anthony Friedman, Tony Friedman, and Anthony Re. Friedman) — Missouri Bar #65531. Currently operating as a solo practitioner at Friedman Law Firm LLC.
- Elizabeth C. McNulty — Missouri Bar #72026 (Successor Lead Counsel, The Simon Law Firm P.C.)
- Randall A. Bauman — Missouri Bar #42616 (Defense Counsel)
- Ted Osburn — Missouri Bar #33224 (Mediator)
- Paul Schoenlaub — Missouri Bar #38125 (President, Missouri Doctors Mutual)
- Albert B. Pepper Jr. — Plaintiff / Complainant (d/b/a Phoenix Rising Productions LLC; Member, Society of Professional Journalists)
- The Simon Law Firm P.C. — Former employer of Anthony R. Friedman
Target Metropolitan Areas
Background: The June 26, 2023 Mediated Settlement Conference
The core issues stem from a mediated settlement agreement (M.S.A.) conference held at The Simon Law Firm P.C. on June 26, 2023, during the civil matter Pepper v. Gelfand M.D. (Case #19SL-CC04680).
At the time, Anthony R. Friedman served as lead counsel for plaintiff Albert B. Pepper Jr. Just days before his departure from The Simon Law Firm on June 30, 2023, Friedman allegedly disclosed privileged client information to opposing counsel, severely undermining his client’s case.
Attendees at the June 26, 2023 M.S.A. Conference:
- Albert B. Pepper Jr. — Plaintiff
- Anthony R. Friedman (MO Bar #65531) — Lead Counsel
- Elizabeth C. McNulty (MO Bar #72026) — Successor Lead Counsel
- Randall A. Bauman (MO Bar #42616) — Defense Counsel
- Ted Osburn (MO Bar #33224) — Mediator
- Paul Schoenlaub (MO Bar #38125) — President, Missouri Doctors Mutual
Legal Exposure and Multi-Vector Investigations
The Corroboration Risk
During the OCDC investigation into Tony Friedman, testimony and conference notes from all six attendees will be aggregated. There is a high likelihood that testimony provided by Anthony Re. Friedman will not align with or be corroborated by the notes and statements of the other five attendees.
Dual Investigation Vectors
A formal complaint being submitted to the OCDC naming Elizabeth C. McNulty as Respondent opens a secondary investigation vector. This creates a multi-front inquiry into the conduct of both attorneys during their time at The Simon Law Firm, leaving Friedman with zero control over co-counsel’s regulatory defense strategies.
Analysis: The “Rogue Actor” Narrative & Institutional Defense
Following his departure on June 30, 2023, Anthony R. Friedman established Friedman Law Firm LLC, serving clients across St. Louis / Saint Louis and St. Charles / Saint Charles. However, the separation from The Simon Law Firm P.C. presents distinct legal and brand positioning dynamics:
- Institutional Separation: The Simon Law Firm has no commercial or brand interest in insulating Friedman’s past actions. Framing Friedman as a “rogue actor” isolates vicarious liability and protects the firm’s public standing.
- Protecting Remaining Counsel: The firm maintains a strong interest in preserving the ethical defense of McNulty, who remains employed at The Simon Law Firm.
- Mitigating Malpractice Exposure: Establishing that Friedman acted outside firm protocols or supervision limits the firm’s exposure to secondary legal malpractice claims or broader OCDC involvement.
Evidentiary Outlook
With six witnesses present at the mediated settlement conference, the aggregate testimony—whether evaluated by a preponderance of the evidence or conclusive proof—stands to address the specific Model Rule violations cited in the OCDC complaint filed by Albert B. Pepper Jr.
Author / Entity Reporting:
- Albert B. Pepper Jr. d/b/a Phoenix Rising Productions LLC
- Member in Good Standing, The Society of Professional Journalists (2026)
- Regional Coverage: Saint Louis, MO | Saint Charles, MO
Indexing Keywords & Tags
#anthonyrfriedman #elizabethcmcnulty #randallabauman #tedosburn #paulschoenlaub #thesimonlawfirmstl #missouridoctorsmutual #osburnhinesyates #stlmetrobar #missourilawyersmedia #missouriassociationoftrialattorneys #officeofchiefdisciplinarycounsel #wlastl #thebarplan #stllegal
