Missouri Supreme Court: One year suspended license for 86-year-old lawyer who groped multiple clients on video

With a 4-3 decision, the Missouri Supreme Court today had the opportunity to disbar an 86-year-old Osceola attorney who was caught on video groping clients, but instead suspended his license for one year.

The slap on the wrist came for conduct that might have resulted in prison time for Purdy's clients.

From the court's opinion:

In September 2020, the Vernon County Sheriff (hereinafter, “Sheriff”) contacted OCDC regarding Purdy’s conduct with four, female clients in the jail interview room. Sheriff provided OCDC with video footage of Purdy meeting with his clients on two days. 

For all of his visits, the video footage depicted Purdy making sexual advances toward his clients and engaging in unwanted and improper sexual touching. This conduct included, but was not limited to, pulling them into his body, reaching underneath their jumpsuits, and kissing them on the mouth. 

Following these incidents, officers at the jail interviewed each of the women regarding Purdy’s conduct. Each woman confirmed Purdy’s sexual advances were unwanted. The women stated they were uncomfortable with his conduct, and one described Purdy as a “little bit of a pervert.” The officers confirmed Purdy never told his clients his sexual conduct was in exchange for payment or reduced legal fees.

In March 2021, an assistant prosecuting attorney for St. Clair County contacted OCDC regarding Purdy’s conduct in open court. The courtroom’s video footage showed Purdy touched his client on her buttocks. The client at issue, however, submitted an affidavit to OCDC stating she did not believe Purdy touched her inappropriately.

In September 2021, Purdy was transporting a client in his vehicle. The client rode in the front passenger seat. The client used her cellular telephone to record a portion of their drive. The video shows that, while he was driving, Purdy reached across the seat, placed his hand inside the client’s blouse, and rubbed her breast. The client stated this was unwanted sexual conduct.

The Missouri Bar's Disciplinary Hearing Panel recommended Purdy's disbarment. Purdy disagreed, which took the case to the Supreme Court. 

Much of the court's opinion appeared to be making a good argument that he should be disbarred.

Once misconduct is established, this Court may consider aggravating and mitigating factors when deciding what sanction to impose. ABA Standard 9.1. The record contains evidence of aggravating and mitigating factors.

With respect to aggravating factors, Purdy has a history of multiple disciplinary offenses. These disciplinary proceedings established he committed multiple offenses in an ongoing pattern of misconduct.

Purdy’s conduct affected some of the legal system’s most vulnerable persons—women facing criminal charges. Four of the women Purdy assaulted were incarcerated and unable to flee from his unwanted advances, nor were they able to rebuff him as they needed him to assist them in court. Additionally, Purdy has been a practicing attorney for more than fifty-five years and should know his sexual misconduct was inappropriate.

Purdy’s assaults happened multiple times with multiple clients in multiple situations over an extended period of time. Purdy’s unwanted sexual assaults happened in the jail, in open court, and in his private vehicle. Further, Purdy’s clients either did not know or did not realize they could repudiate his sexual advances. Purdy fails to grasp the severity of his conduct or these charges. Rather than admitting his conduct was inappropriate and taking responsibility for his actions, Purdy stated he believed his clients were “enticing” him. Purdy’s qualified, after-the-fact remorse is disingenuous. Accordingly, this Court finds insufficient mitigating factors to lessen the discipline imposed.

In a blistering dissent, Judge Zel Fischer made the case for disbarment.

Mr. Purdy's conduct is unbecoming of a lawyer and of the legal profession, and anything less than disbarment will not protect the public or preserve the legal profession. As recognized by the principal opinion, not only did Mr. Purdy sexually assault six female clients, he "exhibited a continued pattern or practice of improper and disturbing conduct, which continued, even after the present case was filed against him" and "Purdy's testimony that he would not allow similar acts to occur in the future [is] disingenuous because [Purdy] continued his pattern of improper sexual conduct toward vulnerable clients even after this case was filed against him.

Fischer drove home the point in her conclusion:

There may have been a time when a temporary suspension was an adequate punishment for sexually assaulting or harassing a client, vulnerable or otherwise, see In re Littleton, 719 S.W.2d 772 (Mo. banc 1986), but, in my view, that time is long gone.

This Court should disbar Mr. Purdy.