Court Opinion

ID: 9775741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:08:22.429918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:30.776074
License: Public Domain

BLACKMAR, Judge,
concurring.
Filed March 8, 1989
Contrary to my initial inclination, I concur. There is much to be said in favor of Judge Welliver’s position,1 but a suspension would inconvenience the respondent’s clients and, no doubt, other parties to litiga-tions and transactions with them. Cf. In re Staab, 719 S.W.2d 780 (Mo. banc 1986). There is no question about the respondent’s *24character or legal ability, and, so long as he is seeking professional help for his psychological problems, we should not demand freedom from all symptoms and manifestations. I am not persuaded that the public interest would be served by an interruption of the respondent’s practice.
We have a surfeit of recent cases involving inattention to clients’ business.2 Nothing is more irritating to clients, or more damaging to the public perception of the legal profession. The respondent assures us that he recognizes his problems and that he has modified his methods of practice. His assurances are backed by his partners, who are substantial and capable lawyers. Perhaps we should have a probationary period for lawyers with the respondent’s problems, with supervision and visitation by the local Bar Committee. I hope that the disciplinary authorities will give prompt attention to any similar complaints about the respondent’s practice. If he does not follow through on his assurances he should not be allowed to practice law.
The principal opinion properly disposes of the respondent’s contention that the prior admonition, for multiple similar offenses, may not be considered by us in determining the appropriate sanction. The admonition is similar to a “writeup” in industrial discipline. The respondent had every right to reject the admonition and submit to charges. His rights are not violated when it is considered as an aggravating circumstance, when he does the very thing he has been warned about.
I concur in the principal opinion.

. I fully agree with Judge Welliver’s support of indefinite suspension rather than suspension with leave to reapply after a specified time.

. See, e.g., In re Dorsey, 731 S.W.2d 252 (Mo. banc 1987); In re Staab, 719 S.W.2d 780 (Mo. banc 1986); In re Hardge, 713 S.W.2d 503 (Mo. banc 1986); In re Elliott, 694 S.W.2d 262 (Mo. banc 1985).