Title: In re: Nathan J. Forck, Respondent.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC88961
State: Missouri
Issuer: Missouri Supreme Court
Date: February 4, 2014

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI 
en banc 
 
IN RE: 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
NATHAN J. FORCK, 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
No. SC88961 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
Respondent.  
 
 
) 
 
ORIGINAL DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING 
 
Opinion issued February 4, 2014 
 
The Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (hereinafter, “OCDC”) seeks to 
discipline Nathan J. Forck’s (hereinafter, “Forck”) law license for alleged multiple 
violations of the rules of professional conduct that occurred while Forck was on 
probation.  This Court finds that Forck committed violations of Rule 4-1.1, Competence, 
in connection with the preparation of estate planning documents and the dispensing of 
advice regarding Medicaid eligibility, and Rule 4-1.5, Fees, by charging an excessive fee 
for estate planning services and representation concerning Medicaid eligibility.  This 
Court orders Forck’s term and conditions of probation be changed and that the stay of his 
previously imposed suspension remain in effect.  
Factual and Procedural History 
Forck was admitted to The Missouri Bar in April 2006 pursuant to a monitoring 
agreement entered into between the Missouri Board of Law Examiners (hereinafter, “the 
Board”), Forck, and the OCDC.  A monitoring agreement is executed when the Board has 
concerns about an applicant based upon the Board’s character and fitness investigation 
but determines it is appropriate to admit an applicant to the practice of law so long as the 
applicant is monitored for some initial period of time by the OCDC.  Here, the Board was 
concerned with Forck’s excessive alcohol use.  Forck was charged with three separate 
alcohol-related offenses prior to admission into the bar.  After his third offense, Forck 
received out-patient treatment for alcoholism.   
The monitoring agreement set forth several conditions Forck agreed to follow 
upon admission to the bar.  These conditions included Forck’s abstinence from alcohol 
and regular attendance at a support or therapy group, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, 
with verification of attendance provided by Forck to an attorney monitor.  Any violation 
of the terms of the monitoring agreement would be deemed a violation of Rule 4-8.4(d), 
Misconduct, and subject Forck to disciplinary action.   
On May 18, 2007, Forck was drinking at a bar, became embroiled in an 
altercation, and was arrested for third-degree assault.1  As a result of Forck’s alcohol use, 
failure to send verification of his attendance at support group meetings, and the failure to 
notify the OCDC of his arrest, the OCDC filed an information charging Forck with 
violations of Rule 4-8.4(d) for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and 
Rule 4-8.1(b) for failing to report his conduct to the OCDC.   
                                                 
1 The charges were dismissed October 18, 2007. 
 
The parties submitted a joint stipulation to this Court requesting that the 
appropriate discipline to impose on Forck would be an indefinite suspension with leave to 
apply for reinstatement in six months, with the suspension stayed, and Forck placed on 
probation for two years.  On December 7, 2007, this Court accepted the OCDC’s 
recommendation.  Forck also agreed to comply with several probation conditions, 
including:  the appointment of a probation monitor; quarterly reporting responsibilities; 
compliance with the rules of professional conduct; abstinence from the use of alcohol and 
other controlled substances; participation in treatment and support group programs; 
submission to random drug testing; and cooperation with an attorney mentor.  Forck’s 
probation also provided that should the OCDC receive a complaint during Forck’s term 
of probation, the term would be extended until such charge was investigated and the 
OCDC made a determination regarding its disposition. 
Forck’s first employment after admission into the bar was with Joseph Yungwirth 
(hereinafter, “Yungwirth”), an attorney with a large elder law and estate planning 
practice.  Yungwirth employed Carmen Munford (hereinafter, “Munford”), a former state 
benefit specialist, as a member of his support staff.  Forck left Yungwirth’s practice after 
approximately eighteen months.  From early 2008 until March 2009, Forck worked as a 
general practitioner with another attorney.   
 
3
In early 2009, Yungwirth contacted Forck about taking over Yungwirth’s 
practice.2  Forck and Yungwirth negotiated a verbal agreement to transfer the practice, 
with Forck agreeing to retain Munford and other support staff.  Forck did not have 
personal experience or expertise in the practice of elder law or Medicaid litigation when 
taking over Yungwirth’s practice.  Forck relied upon the knowledge he gained from 
Yungwirth, Munford, and the support staff he retained to represent clients and administer 
paperwork.  Despite this lack of experience, Forck promoted himself and his firm as 
experienced in elder law, even conducting seminars targeted to people who had questions 
regarding Medicaid issues.   
On January 13, 2010, Forck filed a motion for this Court to issue an order of 
successful completion of probation.  In response, the OCDC stated it received two 
complaints regarding Forck and Yungwirth’s firm.  The OCDC indicated the 
investigation was ongoing and no factual determination had been made at the time Forck 
filed his motion.  As part of its investigation, the OCDC requested Forck produce several 
documents, including certain bank records.  Forck failed to produce these records.  The 
OCDC issued a subpoena to a bank for the production of records pertaining to an account 
over which Forck had signatory authority.  In response, Forck filed a motion to quash the 
subpoena.  This Court overruled Forck’s motion and permitted the OCDC to continue its 
investigation.  This Court also overruled Forck’s motion regarding his release from 
probation because the OCDC’s investigation extended the term of his probation. 
                                                 
2 As of April 1, 2009, Yungwirth ceased practicing law due to physical and mental 
infirmities and on August 23, 2010, received an Order of Interim Suspension from this 
Court issued pursuant to Rule 5.23(b) (Case No. SC91102).   
 
4
On December 23, 2010, Forck filed a second motion for this Court to issue an 
order of successful completion of probation.  The OCDC opposed the motion, stating it 
received two additional complaints regarding Forck’s practice since his first motion for 
release filed in January.  The OCDC’s response also supported a finding that the delay in 
completing its investigation was due, in large part, to Forck’s failure to provide requested 
information.3  This Court overruled Forck’s motion. 
The OCDC completed its investigation, which is the basis for the current 
disciplinary proceeding.  The OCDC and Forck have stipulated that Forck committed 
three counts of professional misconduct. 
With respect to Count I, James and Kathy Poletti retained Forck in August 2009 to 
prepare estate planning documents so they could avoid spending their resources on Kathy 
Poletti’s nursing home expenses.  These documents were intended to replace ones 
previously prepared by a different law firm.  The Polettis initially paid Forck $8,030 for 
long-term care planning and an application for Medicaid benefits.  By the time Forck 
completed preparing the necessary documents, Mrs. Poletti was no longer competent to 
execute them.   
                                                 
3 The dissent repeatedly refers to Forck’s actions during the investigation of the current 
disciplinary proceeding as additional evidence that his misconduct warrants the 
imposition of the stayed suspension.  It should be noted that the OCDC did not charge 
Forck with violating Rule 4-8.1 or any other rule for initially contesting the charges 
brought against him or for failing to cooperate with the OCDC’s investigation.  See e.g., 
In re Hardge-Harris, 845 S.W.2d 557, 560 (Mo. banc 1993) (issuing public reprimand 
after OCDC charged attorney with misconduct for failing to cooperate with its 
investigation); In re Harris, 890 S.W.2d 299, 302 (Mo. banc 1994) (same).  
 
5
Mrs. Poletti passed away on February 20, 2010.  The documents submitted to the 
probate court were the ones drafted by the former law firm.  Although Mrs. Poletti’s 
assets were small enough to be disposed of through the short-form probate procedure, 
Forck advised Mr. Poletti that a full probate estate needed to be opened so the Medicaid 
application for her nursing home expenses could proceed.  Despite the Polettis having 
already paid Forck for estate planning and Medicaid application services, Forck informed 
Mr. Poletti that an additional fee of $2,000 would be required to open the estate.          
Mr. Poletti paid the additional $2,000.  When the probate estate was opened in December 
2010, it was discovered that Forck did not complete Mrs. Poletti’s Medicaid application.  
Mr. Poletti ultimately paid $16,000 in nursing home expenses.  Mr. Poletti later 
discharged Forck and retained new counsel to process the administration of the probate 
estate. 
With respect to Count II, Larry Charles and Patricia Merrill, children of Mildred 
Charles (hereinafter, “Charles”), met with Yungwirth twice in early 2009 to discuss 
preparing a trust and other estate documents that would allow Charles’ assets to be 
sheltered from payment to nursing homes.  Charles was a patient of a care facility at the 
time.  When the children went to an appointment in April 2009 to meet with Yungwirth, 
they were informed that he was no longer practicing law and that Forck now represented 
them.  Forck and Munford advised the children it was likely they would be able to protect 
Charles’ property so that she could immediately apply for Medicaid benefits for her 
nursing home expenses.  At the conclusion of the meeting, the children paid $8,000 to the 
firm. 
 
6
 
Forck prepared a number of documents for Charles’ signature, including an 
affidavit stating that all shares of the family’s farm were owned by Larry Charles, and a 
quit claim deed from Charles to Larry Charles quit-claiming all real estate to him.  These 
documents were executed in April 2009.  Forck sent an additional directive to Charles in 
September 2009 regarding the re-titling of property to remove her name from her assets if 
she had already not done so.  Thereafter, Forck filed an application with the State for 
immediate Medicaid benefits.  Despite the application being incomplete and inaccurate, 
Charles was awarded Medicaid benefits.   
 
In late 2009, Charles and her children discharged Forck and retained new counsel.  
Upon review of Charles’ file, new counsel discovered that several transfers of property 
were reported inaccurately or were of questionable validity for Medicaid purposes.  New 
counsel reported this matter to the Department of Social Services, which prompted an 
investigation into Charles’ award of benefits.  In August 2011, the State concluded 
Charles was ineligible for Medicaid benefits because of the inappropriate transfers and 
advised that the uncompensated amount before Medicaid eligibility was $518, 393.43. 
Count III involves Bernadine Anderson (hereinafter, “Anderson”), another client 
initially represented by Yungwirth.  In October 2007, Anderson executed the Anderson 
Family Irrevocable Trust Agreement with Yungwirth, Munford, and another Yungwirth 
employee named as trustees. 
 
Between April 1, 2009, and August 2010, Munford, acting in her capacity as 
trustee of the irrevocable trust, made payments from the trust to Forck for legal work in 
the amount of $5,975.  Forck was unable to document what work justified this fee and 
 
7
failed to provide Anderson with an itemized statement of his work.  Anderson discharged 
Forck in August 2010, revoked a durable power of attorney, and directed her file to be 
sent to another attorney.   
The parties stipulate that Forck committed five violations pertaining to his 
representation of the Polettis, Charles, and Anderson.  Forck admits he violated Rule      
4-1.1, Competence, with respect to his representation of the Polettis and Charles.  Forck 
further admits he violated Rule 4-1.5, Fees, with respect to all three clients.   
Forck and the OCDC jointly recommend that this Court extend Forck’s probation 
for a minimum term of one year, with additional terms and conditions to be imposed 
beyond those originally ordered by this Court in 2007.  The parties assert there has been a 
change of circumstances warranting probation being extended, rather than the imposition 
of the stayed suspension.  Forck states he has maintained his sobriety since 2007, and the 
original conditions of probation no longer apply.  The parties also agree that the facts 
related to the new stipulated violations are unrelated to Forck’s disciplinary history for 
alcohol abuse, which was the reason he was placed on probation originally. 
Standard of Review 
 
This Court has the inherent authority to regulate the practice of law and administer 
attorney discipline.  In re Zink, 278 S.W.3d 166, 169 (Mo. banc 2009).  The purpose of 
imposing discipline is not to punish the attorney, but to protect the public and maintain 
the integrity of the legal profession.  In re Stewart, 342 S.W.3d 307, 308 (Mo. banc 
2011).  “Those twin purposes may be achieved both directly, by removing a person from 
the practice of law, and indirectly, by imposing a sanction which serves to deter other 
 
8
members of the Bar from engaging in similar conduct.”  In re Kazanas, 96 S.W.3d 803, 
807-08 (Mo. banc 2003).     
Analysis 
Forck admits he violated Rule 4-1.1, Competence, and Rule 4-1.5, Fees, with 
respect to three of his clients.  It is this Court’s duty to determine what discipline is 
appropriate to impose for these violations by reviewing similar past cases, the 
disciplinary rules, and the applicable ABA standards.  Stewart, 342 S.W.3d at 310.  When 
this Court finds an attorney has committed multiple acts of misconduct, “the ultimate 
sanction imposed should at least be consistent with the sanction for the most serious 
instance of misconduct among the violations.” In re Coleman, 295 S.W.3d 857, 870 (Mo. 
banc 2009) (internal citations omitted).    
Turning to the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, (1991 Ed.) this 
Court first examines the recommended range of discipline for a competence violation.  
“Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an area of practice in 
which the lawyer knows he or she is not competent, and causes injury or potential injury 
to a client.”  ABA Standard 4.52.  “Knowledge” is defined as “the conscious awareness of 
the nature of attendant circumstances of the conduct but without the conscious objective 
or purpose to accomplish a particular result.”  ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer 
Sanctions at 7.  “Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer:  (a) demonstrates 
failure to understand relevant legal doctrines or procedures and causes injury or potential 
injury to a client; or (b) is negligent in determining whether he or she is competent to 
handle a legal matter and causes injury or potential injury to a client.”  ABA Standard 
 
9
4.53.  “Negligence” is defined as “the failure of a lawyer to heed a substantial risk that 
circumstances exist or that a result will follow, which failure is a deviation from the 
standard of care that a reasonable lawyer would exercise in the situation.”  ABA 
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions at 7.   
 
The ABA Standards contain similar recommendations for violations concerning 
the fees charged to a client, with the only difference between the sanctions being the 
attorney’s state of mind at the time of the violation.  “Suspension is generally appropriate 
when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a 
professional and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal 
system.”  ABA Standard 7.2.  “Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer 
negligently engages in conduct that is a violation of the duty owed as a professional and 
causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system.”  ABA 
Standard 7.3.   
 
Forck’s misconduct arose out of negligence instead of an intention to violate the 
rules of professional conduct and take advantage of his clients.  The record reflects that 
while Forck knowingly promoted himself and his firm as having expertise in elder law, 
estate planning, and Medicaid litigation, he did so only upon the misguided, and 
unfortunately, unprofessional practices he learned from Yungwirth, Munford, and the 
support staff he retained.  Forck admits he was inexperienced and naively relied upon 
these persons due to their extensive governmental and paralegal experience in the elder 
law field when he committed the violations at issue here.  Upon learning of the 
professional misconduct charges brought against him, Forck promptly discharged 
 
10
Munford and the remaining support staff and now completes all of the legal work, 
including document preparation, himself.   
The parties stipulate misconduct has occurred.  After misconduct has been 
established, this Court may consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances when 
deciding what sanction to impose.  ABA Standard 9.1.  The record contains evidence of 
both circumstances.   
With respect to aggravating circumstances, Forck’s actions involved a pattern of 
misconduct resulting in multiple offenses regarding his procurement of legal fees that 
were excessive for the quality of the work done and the likelihood of success.  Further, 
Forck’s clients were vulnerable victims, consisting of primarily elderly clients concerned 
with how to maintain their assets while seeking care for a family member entering a 
nursing home.  ABA Standard 9.22(c), (d), and (h).   
With respect to mitigating circumstances, Forck was inexperienced in the practice 
of law when he committed these new violations, relying upon improper practices learned 
from Yungwirth, Munford, and his support staff.  Since discharging Yungwirth’s support 
staff, the OCDC has not received any new complaints regarding Forck’s elder law 
practice.  Forck expressed remorse for his actions and is making restitution to his harmed 
clients.  Moreover, Forck agreed to subject himself to an extended term of probation, 
along with additional terms and conditions, should this Court determine probation is 
appropriate.  ABA Standard 9.32(f), (k), and (l). 
The parties contend that application of the ABA Standards and this Court’s rules 
justify continuing Forck’s term of probation because the circumstances and factors 
 
11
connected with his earlier issues have changed substantially.  An attorney is eligible for 
probation if the attorney:  (1) is unlikely to harm the public during the probationary 
period and can be supervised adequately; (2) is able to perform legal services and practice 
law without causing the courts or profession to fall into disrepute; and (3) has not 
committed acts warranting disbarment.  Rule 5.225(a)(2)(A-C).  This Court must take 
into account the nature and circumstances of the attorney’s misconduct and his or her 
history, character, and health status when placing him or her on probation and fashioning 
the conditions the attorney must abide by while on probation.  Rule 5.225(b)(1).   
All three eligibility requirements of Rule 5.225(a) have been demonstrated here.  
First, it is unlikely Forck will harm the public during his extended probationary period.  
Forck has maintained his sobriety since 2007, he has undertaken to improve his practice 
by discharging the support staff that offered misguided and erroneous advice, and he now 
completes all of his clients’ legal tasks himself.  Forck also forged a relationship with an 
attorney mentor who is well-respected in the elder law field, and that attorney agreed to 
monitor and supervise Forck professionally, as well as personally, to ensure Forck 
remains in compliance with the terms of his probation.  Second, Forck’s utilization of the 
services of the attorney mentor, attendance at additional professional education classes, 
and reporting requirements will remedy the prior misconduct and permit Forck to 
perform legal services and practice law in the future without causing the courts or 
profession to fall into disrepute.  Finally, Forck has not committed any misconduct that 
warrants disbarment. 
 
12
This Court determined probation was the appropriate discipline in In re Wiles, 107 
S.W.3d 228 (Mo. banc 2003).  There, the attorney had been admonished at least eleven 
times over a three-year period for violations of the rules pertaining to diligence, 
communication, safeguarding client property, and conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice in Missouri.  Id. at 229.  The attorney also had two prior 
admonitions and stipulated to misconduct that warranted a public censure in Kansas.  Id. 
at 228.  Likewise, in In re Coleman, this Court issued a suspension, which was stayed, 
subject to the completion of a one-year term of probation.  In re Coleman, 295 S.W.3d at 
859.  There, the attorney had been admonished twice and publicly reprimanded once for a 
total of eight violations of the rules pertaining to communication, unreasonable fees, 
diligence, expediting litigation, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.  
Id. This Court found the attorney committed five new violations of the rules that resulted 
in client harm, and that concerned the management of his IOLTA account, yet this Court 
permitted the attorney to serve a probationary term rather than be suspended.  Id.  
This Court adheres to a practice of applying progressive discipline when imposing 
sanctions on attorneys who commit misconduct.  See In re Ehler, 319 S.W.3d 442, 445 
(Mo. banc 2010).  ABA Standard 2.7 governs when probation may be imposed.  The 
commentary to that standard provides that in the event an attorney violates the terms of 
his or her probation, this Court “may extend the probation, impose a more severe 
sanction, or otherwise handle the matter.”  Likewise, this Court’s Rule 5.225(f)(2), which 
governs probation violations, provides: 
 
13
If the chief disciplinary counsel receives information during the period of 
probation that any condition may have been violated, the chief disciplinary 
counsel may file a motion in this Court specifying the alleged violation and 
seeking an order requiring the lawyer to show cause why the probation 
should not be revoked and further discipline imposed. Further discipline 
may include additional probation, suspension, or disbarment.  The filing of 
the motion stays the expiration date of the period of probation until final 
action is taken on the motion. (Emphasis added).4 
 
This Court recognizes Forck already has received the benefit of an extended 
probationary period, and it could impose the stayed suspension.  The commentary to ABA 
Standard 4.52, advises that “a suspension should be imposed in cases where a lawyer 
engages in practice in areas in which a lawyer knows he or she is not competent.”  ABA 
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions at 34.  Here, however, Forck did not engage in 
an area of practice that he knew he was not competent to undertake.  Rather, he 
negligently utilized improper practice techniques learned from his previous senior 
partner.  Moreover, the original imposition of probation arose from Forck’s alcohol abuse 
and not fulfilling the terms of the monitoring agreement.  These current violations are the 
first complaints that have resulted in client harm, and are less numerous than the 
violations in Wiles and Coleman, who both received probation.   
The recommendation by the OCDC seeks to extend the terms of probation and add 
additional conditions, which, while not a suspension, does impose additional sanctions on 
Forck.5  Moreover, by allowing Forck to remain on probation, he is provided an 
                                                 
4 Although the dissent argues Forck’s misconduct warrants the harsher sanction of 
suspension, this Court’s extension of Forck’s probation is undisputedly permitted 
pursuant to the guidelines provided by ABA Standard 2.7 and Rule 5.225(f)(2). 
5 The dissent faults the OCDC for failing to seek any discipline for the new violations 
that occurred. However, the extended term of probation, with additional terms 
 
14
opportunity to receive additional education, monitoring, and support that will improve his 
law practice and better serve and protect his clients in the future.  Moreover, by 
permitting Forck to continuing practicing law ensures his harmed clients can be made 
whole through full restitution payments. 
Therefore, after examining past decisions of this Court, the rules of professional 
conduct, and the ABA Standards, this Court finds Forck’s conduct, which can be 
remedied by education and is unlikely to reoccur, warrants an extended term of 
probation, rather than revocation.6  The conditions of Forck’s probation include:  the 
appointment of a probation monitor; filing of quarterly responsibility reports; attendance 
at the ethics school conducted by the OCDC and elder law continuing legal education 
programs; meetings and reporting to an attorney mentor regarding practice management; 
submission to periodic client trust account audits; commission of no other violations of 
the rules of professional conduct; and full restitution to his harmed clients.7  
 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
specifically tailored to address the misconduct related to Forck’s elder law practice, 
effectively serve to impose discipline for these violations. 
6 The dissent states that extending Forck’s probation will not protect the public or 
maintain the integrity of the legal profession because Forck has moved on from engaging 
in alcohol abuse to alcohol-related assault to incompetent representation of elderly clients 
and attorney-fee abuse.  The record demonstrates that this Court’s imposition of 
probation in 2007 was effective in protecting the public from the harms related to Forck’s 
alcohol abuse.  Forck has remained sober since being placed on probation and adhered to 
the terms of probation related to his alcohol abuse.  Further, it must be stressed that Forck 
negligently, rather than knowingly, represented his clients and is making restitution for 
the excessive fees collected. 
7 Forck has agreed to pay James Poletti $9,000 in restitution, the Mildred Charles Family 
Trust $8,000, and the Bernadine Anderson Family Trust $5,000. 
 
15
 
16
Conclusion 
This Court orders that Forck remain on probation for a period of two years on the 
conditions imposed herein and that the stay of his previously imposed suspension remain 
in effect. 
 
 
 
______________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   GEORGE W. DRAPER III, JUDGE 
 
 
Russell, C.J., Stith and Teitelman, JJ., concur;  
Fischer, J., dissents in separate opinion filed;  
Breckenridge and Wilson, JJ., concur in  
opinion of Fischer, J. 
 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI 
en banc 
IN RE: 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
NATHAN J. FORCK, 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
No. SC88961 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
Respondent.  
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
DISSENTING OPINON 
 
I respectfully dissent from the principal opinion.  This Court suspended Nathan J. 
Forck's law license, stayed the suspension, and placed him on probation in December 
2007 for violating the rules of professional conduct and terms of a monitoring agreement 
imposed by the Missouri Board of Law Examiners for his admittance to The Missouri 
Bar.  Following subsequent complaints filed against Forck in 2009, Forck and the Office 
of Chief Disciplinary Counsel ("OCDC") entered into a joint stipulation admitting two 
violations of Rule 4-1.1, Competence, and three violations of Rule 4-1.5, Fees.  Each of 
these ethical failures is a violation of Forck's probation.  Forck is before this Court to 
determine if probation should be revoked for these new violations of the rules of 
professional conduct.  The principal opinion incorrectly treats these violations as if the 
Court should analyze the facts and circumstances to determine the appropriate discipline 
for new rule violations as part of an original disciplinary proceeding.  Because Forck has 
violated the terms of his probation by engaging in conduct that violated the rules of 
professional conduct, I would revoke Forck's probation and impose the previously 
ordered discipline suspending his license to practice law.  
Statement of the Facts 
 
A full account of Forck's transgressions is set forth in the principal opinion.  This 
statement of facts serves to clarify the procedural posture of this case and highlight the 
events that render revocation of Forck's probation appropriate. 
 
The Missouri Board of Law Examiners recommended that Forck be admitted to 
The Missouri Bar in 2006 subject to a monitoring agreement among the board, Forck, and 
the OCDC.  The board had legitimate concerns about Forck's prior excessive use of 
alcohol and arrests stemming from Forck's alcohol abuse.1  The agreement required, 
among other things, that Forck abstain from the use of alcohol, attend group meetings for 
alcohol abuse, and report his attendance to an attorney monitor.   
 
In May 2007, Forck was arrested and charged with third-degree assault following 
an altercation at a bar where he had been drinking alcohol.  As a result, this Court 
indefinitely suspended Forck from the practice of law.  The Court stayed the suspension 
and placed Forck on probation for two years.  One condition of his probation was that he 
would not "engage in conduct that violates the Rules of Professional Conduct." 
 
In January 2010, Forck moved this Court to issue an order of successful 
completion of his probation.  The OCDC responded to that motion by stating that it had 
                                             
 
1 Historically, legitimate concerns such as are present in this case could have kept Forck from 
obtaining a license to practice law.  The allowance of this type of agreement does serve the 
interest of applicants who want the privilege to practice law and who successfully complete 
 
2
received a number of ethical complaints against Forck that were still under investigation.  
The OCDC indicated that, as part of its investigation, it had requested bank records from 
Forck.  Forck failed to produce these records and even attempted to quash a subpoena 
issued to the bank for production of the requested documents.  Due to the pending 
investigation, the OCDC recommended that this Court overrule Forck's motion, which 
this Court did.   
Despite his knowledge that he was under investigation by the OCDC for these 
additional violations of professional conduct during the period of probation, Forck filed a 
second motion for an order of successful completion of probation.  Both motions filed by 
Forck attached an affidavit where he falsely swore he had not committed any violations 
of the rules of professional conduct during the probation term.2  In response, the OCDC 
indicated that Forck was to blame for any delay in the investigation, and this Court 
overruled Forck's second motion.   
At the conclusion of the currently pending OCDC investigation, Forck stipulated 
that he committed five new, separate rule violations in 2009—two violations of Rule      
4-1.1, Competence, and three violations of Rule 4-1.5, Fees.  Forck also stipulated that 
these ethical violations caused harm to his clients.  The violations are further detailed in 
the principal opinion. 
                                                                                                                                                 
 
alcohol treatment but, of course, does not necessarily protect the public or protect the integrity of 
the profession when treatment is not successful. 
2 Although not admitted in the stipulation, it is beyond dispute that Forck also violated paragraph 
2 of his conditions of probation, which required Forck to submit a quarterly report which was to 
include "a written statement under penalty of perjury regarding whether Respondent has 
 
3
 
The stipulation provides that the OCDC was acting pursuant to Rule 5.225, which 
governs probation in the attorney discipline context.  The stipulation does not ask for any 
new discipline for these new violations, but rather recommends that these probation 
violations result in the Court extending Forck's 2007 probation for one year.  So not only 
does the OCDC not seek to revoke Forck’s probation, but it also does not intend to seek 
any discipline for these new violations of the rules of professional conduct. 
Analysis 
Based on Forck's multiple disciplinary incidents, the multiple probation violations 
at issue here, his failure to comply with the OCDC's investigation, and his two attempts 
to have this Court order the successful completion of his probation despite the ongoing 
investigation of complaints against him, this Court should revoke Forck's probation and 
impose the suspension previously ordered as a result of the 2007 violations.  In my view, 
this result is required because probation must mean something if it is to have any effect.  
Permitting attorneys to violate probation with little consequence sanctions bad behavior 
and damages the integrity of the legal profession, and, as stipulated, in this case caused 
harm to the public.  Through his actions, Forck has demonstrated that he is no longer 
eligible for the probation imposed for his 2007 conduct.  Accordingly, this Court should 
revoke probation and impose the originally ordered discipline.      
To be clear, the OCDC is bringing Forck's 2009 competence and fees violations to 
the attention of this Court as probation violations.  The OCDC is not seeking any 
                                                                                                                                                 
 
complied with the Rules of Professional Conduct and all conditions of probation during the 
preceding calendar quarter[.]"    
 
4
discipline for Forck's 2009 conduct.  Rather, the OCDC has stipulated that, despite 
Forck's probation violations, this Court should extend the probation imposed for Forck's 
2007 misconduct.  As such, this Court must decide whether, in light of the probation 
violations, Forck remains eligible for his 2007 probation—subject to an extended term as 
stipulated by the OCDC—or whether to revoke Forck's probation and impose the 
suspension that this Court stayed in 2007, conditioned on Forck's successful completion 
of probation.  The principal opinion, however, does not answer this question.  Instead, the 
principal opinion has incorrectly used the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 
to determine the appropriate discipline for Forck's 2009 competence and fees violations, 
ultimately concluding that probation would be best.3   
When examining probation violations in the attorney discipline context, Rule 
5.225 guides this Court's analysis.  More specifically, Rule 5.225(f)(2) contains the 
procedure for probation violations and provides: 
If the chief disciplinary counsel receives information during the period of 
probation that any condition may have been violated, the chief disciplinary 
counsel may file a motion in this Court specifying the alleged violation and 
seeking an order requiring the lawyer to show cause why the probation 
should not be revoked and further discipline imposed. Further discipline 
may include additional probation, suspension, or disbarment. The filing of 
the motion stays the expiration date of the period of probation until final 
action is taken on the motion. 
                                             
 
3 The principal opinion improperly treats the procedural posture of this case as if the OCDC 
sought the imposition of new discipline for Forck's 2009 rule violations.  The joint stipulation 
entered into between Forck and the OCDC, however, seeks to continue the stayed suspension 
and extend the term of probation entered for Forck's 2007 alcohol-related violation.  The 
OCDC's brief to this Court specifically states that, though it is authorized to do so, the OCDC is 
not seeking new discipline for the 2009 rule violations.  Counsel for the OCDC conceded at oral 
argument that this result means Forck will, in effect, receive less discipline than an attorney who 
was not on probation and committed the same conduct. 
 
5
 
Rule 5.225 dictates that, when reviewing probation violations, this Court must 
decide whether to revoke probation and impose the originally ordered discipline for the 
initial violations or whether cause has been shown why probation should not be revoked.  
This is typically accomplished by ordering the allegedly offending attorney to show cause 
why probation should not be revoked.  Where, as here, the OCDC enters into a stipulation 
with the attorney, the issues before this Court are, in light of the admitted probation 
violations, does the OCDC's stipulation adequately show cause why probation should not 
be revoked and does the recommendation adequately fulfill the purposes of attorney 
discipline.  This Court has stated that the purpose of attorney discipline is to "protect the 
public and maintain the integrity of the legal profession."  In re Zink, 278 S.W.3d 166, 
169 (Mo. banc 2009).  Therefore, in the event Forck shows the required cause, this Court 
must determine whether additional probation will protect the public and maintain the 
integrity of the legal profession or if a suspension is necessary to serve either purpose.   
 
Unlike when this Court imposes original discipline, there is little guidance for 
deciding the appropriate sanction in light of a probation violation.  The ABA Standards 
for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1991 ed.) set out no standards regarding probation 
revocation proceedings.4  No reported case of this Court has dealt with the issue.  Nor 
have any universal standards been developed for probation revocation in the reported 
cases of the other states.  This increases the significance of the precedent established by 
                                             
 
4 Although the commentary to the ABA Standards suggests possible consequences for a 
probation violation, it does not provide any standards to apply when deciding which consequence 
is appropriate.  The latter issue is ultimately what is before the Court here.   
 
6
the principal opinion.5 
 
Rule 5.225, however, does provide some insight.  As the principal opinion notes, 
Rule 5.225(a)(2) sets out the eligibility requirements for probation in the attorney 
discipline context.  An attorney is eligible for probation if the attorney is: 1) unlikely to 
harm the public during the probationary period and can be adequately supervised; 2) is 
able to perform legal services and is able to practice law without causing the courts or 
profession to fall into disrepute; and 3) has not committed acts warranting disbarment.  
Rule 5.225(a)(2).  When imposing discipline in 2007, this Court necessarily determined 
that, in light of these considerations, Forck was eligible for probation and the Court could 
stay his suspension.   
It follows that, in determining whether Forck has shown cause why his probation 
should not be revoked through his stipulation with the OCDC, this Court should 
reevaluate whether Forck remains eligible for probation, taking into consideration his 
2009 ethical failings.  This evaluation permits the Court to examine Forck's probation 
violations while still placing the proper emphasis on the procedural posture of this case.  
If—taking into consideration Forck's initial 2007 conduct and his 2009 transgressions—
Forck remains eligible for probation, then this Court could keep the probation in place 
and, as the OCDC recommends, extend the term.6  If, however, Forck's conduct has 
                                             
 
5 Prior to permitting probation, an attorney who had his or her license suspended, such as Forck, 
was not allowed to practice law unless reinstated.  Actual suspension protected the public and 
maintained the integrity of the profession until the suspended attorney demonstrated 
rehabilitation and the competence to be reinstated. 
6 In a case like this one, where the OCDC does not intend to seek discipline for new rule 
violations that also constitute probation violations, the better question is: what would be the 
 
7
rendered him ineligible for probation under Rule 5.225(a)(2), then this Court is left with 
little choice but to revoke probation and impose the stayed indefinite suspension.   
In my view, upon his violation of the rules of professional conduct in 2009, Forck 
was no longer eligible for probation because he no longer could be considered "unlikely 
to harm the public during the probationary period" or "able to practice law without 
causing the … profession to fall into disrepute."  Forck did, in fact, harm the public 
during his probationary period—at least five times.  Forck's violations admittedly harmed 
his clients, thereby showing he no longer could meet the first eligibility requirement.  
Forck’s violations have harmed the legal profession by undermining attorney credibility 
and competence in the eyes of his clients and anyone who reads the facts of this case, 
thereby showing he no longer could meet the second eligibility requirement.    
 
Furthermore, Forck's checkered disciplinary history weighs in favor of revoking 
probation and ordering the suspension because it shows both that Forck is likely to cause 
harm to the public and has caused the legal profession to fall into disrepute.  Strike One:  
Forck was admitted to the bar under a monitoring agreement with the Missouri Board of 
Law Examiners because the board was concerned with a number of alcohol-related 
incidents that occurred prior to Forck's application to the bar.  As part of that agreement, 
Forck agreed to abstain from any alcohol use, attend alcohol—abuse meetings, and report 
his compliance with those conditions to an attorney monitor.  Strike Two:  Forck 
                                                                                                                                                 
 
proper sanction if all the violations—the initial violations as well as the probation violations—
had all been brought as an original matter at the same time?  While the ultimate purpose for the 
present action is the disposition of the probation violation, the initial rules violations should not 
be forgotten.   
 
8
continued to drink alcohol and failed to verify his attendance at the meetings, and this 
resulted in an alcohol-related arrest and an assault in May 2007.  Forck received 
suspension of his law license, which was stayed if he successfully completed two years of 
probation.  Strike Three:  Forck admits he committed five additional violations of the 
rules of professional conduct while on probation and that his elderly clients were harmed. 
 
Forck also has stipulated that his 2009 rule violations caused harm to his clients.  
Forck has stipulated that, on two occasions, he failed to act with the level of competence 
demanded of the attorneys licensed to practice law in this state.  Forck also has stipulated 
that, on three occasions, the fees he charged for the incompetent work that he performed 
violated the rules of professional conduct to the extent that he agreed to pay a total of 
$22,000 in restitution.  Forck acknowledges that, in each instance, he caused harm to his 
clients.7  On one occasion, a client hired Forck to prepare estate-planning documents.  He 
did not complete the documents until after his client was no longer competent to sign 
them, and the client's heir was forced to tender documents prepared by a different lawyer 
previously hired by the client to the probate court.  Forck caused harm to one of the most 
vulnerable categories of clients, and admits that he has caused substantial harm.  
Considering the magnitude of the harm caused, Forck is, in my view, no longer eligible 
for probation. 
                                             
 
7 Though the OCDC's stipulation has the rule violations listed in Counts I-III, Forck actually 
stipulated to five different rule violations: two violations of Rule 4-1.1 and three violations of   
4-1.5.  This amounts to five separate probation violations and the acknowledgement that each 
violation caused a client harm. 
 
9
 
Forck's failure to comply with the ongoing investigations and his two attempts to 
obtain an order of successful completion of probation also weigh in favor of imposing the 
suspension because they have caused the profession to fall into disrepute.  First, Forck 
failed to comply with the OCDC's investigation of the 2009 violations by refusing to 
produce bank records and attempting to quash a subpoena for those records.  This non-
compliance obstructed and prolonged the OCDC's investigation.  Next, Forck filed two 
separate motions with this Court for an order of successful completion of probation with 
the knowledge that he was under investigation for rules violations.  In each motion, Forck 
asserted that he had complied with all the conditions of his probation.  Along with each 
motion, Forck filed an affidavit in which he falsely swore that he had complied with all 
the conditions of his probation.  Forck now stipulates that he did not, in fact, comply with 
the conditions of his probation.  Forck's attempts to obtain an order of successful 
completion of his probation despite the ongoing investigation render him ineligible for 
probation and weigh in favor of imposing the suspension.  
In my view, Forck is ineligible for continued probation, and his probation should 
be revoked.  The OCDC and Forck argue, however, that Forck should be subject only to 
additional probation because his circumstances have changed in that he no longer abuses 
alcohol, he has fired the staff who allegedly led him astray, this is the first time that he 
caused harm to his clients, and he has begun paying restitution to the clients he harmed.   
In my view, these "changed circumstances" do not justify the minimal 
consequence the parties request.  The thrust of the argument for extended probation 
appears to be that Forck's current violations are different from the cause of his original 
 
10
suspension.  The fact that Forck’s vices have mutated from alcohol abuse to alcohol-
related assault to incompetent representation of elderly clients and attorney fee abuse 
perpetrated on elderly clients does not instill any confidence that an extra year of 
probation protects the public or maintains the integrity of the legal profession. 
Conclusion 
This Court has an obligation to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the 
legal profession.  Neither aim is served if attorneys face only light consequences for 
significant probation violations.  This is particularly true where the probation violation is 
a violation of the rules of professional conduct that might, as the OCDC conceded at oral 
argument, have significant consequences if brought in an original independent 
proceeding.  Extending probation here is effectively no consequence at all.   
If probation is to have any effect or value in serving the purposes of attorney 
discipline, then probation violations must be met with real consequences, particularly 
when the probation violation is a subsequent violation of the rules of professional 
conduct.   
 
In my view, the OCDC and the principal opinion have answered the wrong 
question.  This Court is not now tasked with determining the appropriate sanction for 
Forck's 2007 violations of the rules of professional conduct.  It was already determined 
that those violations merited a suspension.  Instead, the Court is tasked with the reality 
that staying Forck's suspension and granting probation harmed the public and damaged 
the integrity of the profession.  In light of the significant nature of the violations, I would 
revoke Forck's probation and impose the previously ordered suspension because, in my 
 
11
 
12
view, Forck has demonstrated that allowing him the privilege to continue the practice of 
law is not worth the risk to the public or the reputation of the legal profession.  This is so, 
particularly in light of the fact that Forck has not practiced law one single day in the six 
years since his admission to the bar without being subject to supervision.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
___________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Zel M. Fischer, Judge