He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter | Albert B. Pepper Jr.

On the morning of January 22, 2024 my dad was a little upset about something minor and chided me, then I replied: “Dad, I am going into an environment where everyone hates me and I do not need the controversy..!” — Those who hated me and hated me most was my own legal counsel of The Simon Law Firm P.C.

It was the first day of four day trial in a medical malpractice complaint named Pepper v Gelfand M.D. case #19SL-CC04680 that has been ongoing now for over four years.

The original lead counsel of The Simon Law Firm P.C. was Anthony R. Friedman Mo. Bar #65531 who I have ascribed the epithet of “Proto-Malfeasor” whereas on June 26th of 2023 Friedman shared privileged information with opposing counsel during a mediated settlement agreement conference that was held at The Simon Law Firm on 800 Market St. in St. Louis.

This email contained my case theory, injury valuation metrics, mock cross examination for trial and what is commonly referred to as work product of which is such of a proprietary nature that even during discovery it is protected from being turned over to opposing counsel. Yet, Friedman shared all of it and in effect gave the adversary my entire case strategy and playbook.

The mediation was a failure and four days later on June 30th of 2023 Friedman left the Simon Law Firm P.C. and turned the case over to Elizabeth C. McNulty Mo. Bar #72026 a junior associate having no trial court experience.

The multitude acts of the violations of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct by Friedman has resulted in a complaint filed with the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Missouri on December 22, 2025 of which the O.C.D.C. formerly opened an investigation of the allegations naming Anthony R. Friedman as Respondent on February 17, 2026 — File #25–2531-X that at the date of this writing is waiting for a response from Friedman.

Elizabeth McNulty after being appointed as successor lead counsel has been ascribed the epithet “Successor-Malfeasor”. Whereas, McNulty had every opportunity and my cooperation, to provide a cure and to rehabilitate my case, cause and complaint. Yet, McNulty perpetuated the misconduct all the way up to, through and post trial. Her misconduct is the cause of an O.C.D.C. complaint being prepared for submission and review to the O.C.D.C. as well.

By the time we got to trial I was fully aware that the representation of the associates of The Simon Law Firm P.C. were hostile and adversarial towards me and in particular that of Elizabeth McNulty an that of Elizabeth S. Lenivy Mo. Bar #67924.

(If you do a deep dive into Elizabeth S. Lenivy you may discover why the hostility. Elizabeth S. Lenivy and her husband Steve Lenivy are aggressive political activists in St. Louis. Lenivy expressed her political activism while yet a student at St. Louis University demonstrating hostility to a socio-political demographic. I am that demographic. ) That same activism and political proclivity follows her into her legal career. Do a “deep dive” into her political activism. She’s an attorney and she is hostile to a socio-political demographic. — I have the evidence. However, I cannot render a full exposition at this time. I can only state that it is quite controversial and presents with a malicious contempt toward those of an opposing view point.

Two days before trial on Sunday morning, January 21st., 2024 Elizabeth C. McNulty, Elizabeth S. Lenivy and I met at The Simon Law firm P.C. for a brief and ineffectual “trial prep”. There was no case theory, trail theory presented or any suggestions with regard to my presentation and composure at trial. However, McNulty wanted to read to me her opening statement….

After McNulty read to me the opening statement that she had prepared and intended to present to the jury she asked me what I thought. I replied: “I think that sounds like bullsh!t…!!!” As McNulty was sitting there in a state of catatonia staring down at her monologue on the table I proceed to say to McNulty: “If I were a member of a jury I would have nothing but contempt for someone as you described…!” And in fact ladies and gentlemen, the description of the man that McNulty was going to present to the jury was derogatory and highly offensive. It was contemptible..!

It was at that time that I knew, beyond a reasonable doubt, that those two sitting with me at the conference table, McNulty to my fore and Lenivy to my left were committed to sabotaging my persona and identity at trial in the eyes of the jury. This was no longer a struggle that I had been having with conjecture and cognitive dissonance as to what was going on. See Footnote:

Up until this day and date of the “trial prep” meeting I wrestled with what I had been observing. The lack of aggressive advocacy. The non-feasance, the mis-feasance and the lack of preparation of a claim that had strong merit and substantial value. I could not reconcile the dichotomy of why one of “the winningest law firms” would undermine their clients case “systemically”. I say systemically whereas John G. Simon Mo. Bar #35231 was fully aware of my concern whereas W. Bevis Shock Mo.Bar #32551 made intercession for me and advised Simon of my concerns. Upon which, Simon gave assurances to Schock to relay to me. Upon these assurances I continued with The Simon Law Firm P.C. However, the remedy and rehabilitation of my case was never forthcoming. As a consequence Simon is vicariously liable and the “Vicarious Malfeasor” for his associates tortious conduct. To this day, I do not know the motive. — But they know.

Now you know why I made the statement to my father: “Dad, I am going into an environment where everyone hates me and I do not need the controversy.”

On the last day of trial, while the jury was in deliberations, I looked into the window of the door leading into the court room and there was Elizabeth S. Lenivy with opposing counsel and Gelfand the defendant in the very midst, engaged in ex-parte communications without my informed consent. I could tell, without hearing a word, by observing how they were arrayed and their interaction, jovial, that they were in collusion and they were discussing their “collective” trial strategy and taking relish as to how it was executed. Gelfand himself, I observed to be quite satisfied. I make this as a statement of fact. I being a composite infj / intp as per the Meyers Briggs Type Indicator of personality theory have insight into such phenomena.

When Elizabeth S. Lenivy turned and saw me in the door window leading into the courtroom she was for a moment, startled and dismissed me with a wave of the hand signaling through non-verbal communication that I was not to enter.

All of them, including my own counsel, were my adversaries.

The preceding was to create for you, the context and the more “ineffable” mood and interpersonal dynamics that was occurring at trial. Now, I will proceed with a forensic bulleted list of just a few of the “trial irregularities” that had occurred. Anyone, with the credentials of a juris doctor, an attorney, lawyer or even the court bailiff will readily recognize the entire inversion of plaintiff side legal representation. — It staggers the imagination.

What the “Successor-Malfeasor” did at trial -

1) Allowed the defense counsel of Vladimir Gelfand M.D. present their “case in chief” first while Pepper was seated at the last bench in the gallery. Out of sight of the jury. Unable to participate in his own case litigation while the defendant set the tone and created pathos and sympathy among the jury members before Pepper could tell of his story and injuries. During the entire trial Pepper was seated in the gallery. The defendant was seated prominently at the defense table during trial.

2) Allowed defense counsel and defense expert witness introduce inflammatory testimony that was entirely prejudicial to Pepper and without probative value and did not raise timely objections to preserve for appeal. (In fact, Elizabeth S. Lenivy knew that defense counsel was going to introduce the prejudicial testimony. However, there was not treatment nor mention of the prejudictial testimony in the pre-trail “motions in limine” .

3) Did not disclose to Pepper prior to trial that the defendant and defense counsel withheld, spoliated 81 pages, approximately one third of Peppers medical chart. Pepper was unaware of these missing medical records until the cross examination of Dr. Gelfand by Elizabeth C. McNulty when McNulty advised Gelfand that we had recovered those records. Even though McNulty and The Simon Law Firm were aware and recovered the full medical chart 2–3 weeks before trial they did not advise Pepper nor provide an opportunity for “informed consent” as to whether or not the case should proceed to trial. — These pages were “smoking gun” evidence of breach of duty and supported the imposition of punitive damages that per Elizabeth S. Lenivy’s descriptions were individually “hand picked” from throughout the medical corpus. — We should never have proceeded to trail.

4) “Net-Zero” McNulty presented an expert witness at trial for duty, departure and causation only. No expert witness testimony for damages. No valuation metrics, nor life care planner valuation for the jury to consider. When it came time for the jury to deliberate upon how much of an award Pepper should receive. McNulty presented nothing at trial for the jury to consider. — For months prior to trial I pleaded with counsel at The Simon Law Firm P.C. to retain a forensic psychiatrist as an expert witness to tell the jury of the non-economic damages I realized of which are quite substantial. My plea’s went unheaded.

For example. Because of my injuries I live in a residential care facility at the tax payers expense and receive an $85.00 per month stipend for sundry items. That is the living arrangement I had when I retained The Simon Law Firm P.C. and that is the living arrangements I have as to the date of this writing. The Simon Law Firm knew of my plight and The Simon Law Firm by their deliberate, negligent, and malicious representation assured that I would be consigned therein after their withdrawal of representation.- I have the evidence.

5) McNulty deliberately advised the jury that any punitive damages award was for Pepper which prejudiced Pepper whereas the jury is not to consider where or to whom a damages award is paid. — Furthermore, I have captured testimony of the associates of The Simon Law Firm describing in detail that in similar cases they had to avoid advising the jury members of who receives a punitive damages award whereas it will prejudice the jury to not impose punitive damages. — I have the evidence. The testimony of Timothy M. Cronin Mo. Bar #63255 and John G. Simon’s answer to the jury in Koon v Walden a case having similar features to that of Pepper v Gelfand.

6) McNulty refused to discuss post trial remedies and motions that were available to Pepper to seek remedy for a “Net-Zero” jury award even though the jury found the doctor to be in violation of the duty of the standard of care that resulted in injuries. At the same time McNulty effectively ended the attorney client fiduciary relationship before filing a motion to withdraw representation and granting thereof by the Trial court.

Note: After the withdrawal of representation by Elizabeth C. McNulty and of The Simon Law Firm P.C. I proceeded pro se. with a post trial motion for additur or in the alternative a new trail. A post trial motion and remedy that McNulty and vicariously Simon Law Firm had a fiduciary and professional responsibility to pursue. — It was no surprise that they did not. They had abandon me, my cause and complaint long before the case went to trial.

I opened, stating that I was a lamb brought to the slaughter. That I was entering into an environment where everyone hated me and indeed I was. Yet what repose I enjoyed during the whole process of trial. I knew what they were doing and I already reconciled the outcome in advance. When I began to suspect that McNulty was not going to provide a remedy for the misconduct of Friedman and rehabilitate the case I transitioned from not only a plaintiff litigant but to an observer. I documented, listened and deliberated upon all that I seen and heard with great acuity and with cognitive dissonance attempting to reconcile what I was observing.

Seated in the gallery the whole time during trial gave me a vantage point of the third person perspective not only of the most obvious elements but the subtleties and nuances like watching the performance of marionettes in a scripted play with fascination and amazement. They were adversarial towards me, while enjoying the illusion of impunity. I was documenting and observing them, committed to their eschatological accountability.

As for Hon. Stanley J. Wallach, presiding judge div. 12 of the 21st Judicial Circuit Mo. Bar #45280 a member and lector at the apostate Grace Episcopal Church in Kirkwood Missouri, he witnessed everything. There is no one that was in that court room with the credentials of a juris doctor, that can deny what was occurring. If Wallach denies my allegations what does that infer? If Wallach affirms my allegations what does that infer?

Furthermore, with regard to Wallach. When counsel of The Simon Law Firm P.C. withdrew their representation on February 29, 2024 Albert B. Pepper Jr. proceeded pro se and “cobbled together” a motion of additure of in the alternative a new trial (damages only) having strong merit. I never crafted a court motion before and had thirty days to filed it with the court on March 28, 2024.

Wallach knew my post trial motion for additur was pending his review and adjudication whereas on the morning of March 28, 2024 there was a hearing of which I was in attendance and Wallach looked at the screen on his bench, acknowledge the filing of the motion and gave opposing counsel thirty days to respond.

Knowing what had occurred at trial and that I was now moving pro se and at a tremendous disadvantage what did Hon. Stanley J. Wallach do? Wallach allowed my motion for additur or in the alternative a new trial (and my follow up motions) to be administratively denied under Rule 78.06

Footnote: I will be proceeding either with counsel or as litigant pro se to file a complaint with in the five year statute of limitations of the State of Missouri for legal malpractice torts naming The Simon Law Firm P.C. et al as defendants.

I make this entry for any and all interested parties and for you, the reader to understand that the “language” of the Missouri Statute that governs the five year statute of limitations reads as follows:

1. Section 516.120, RSMo (The Time Limit)

“Within five years: … (4) An action for taking, detaining, or injuring any goods or chattels, including actions for the specific recovery of personal property, or for any other injury to the person or rights of another, not arising on contract and not herein otherwise enumerated…”

2. Section 516.100, RSMo (The “Trigger” Clause)

This is the critical section that defines when the five years begins. Missouri does not use a pure “discovery rule,” but rather the “capable of ascertainment” test:

“…the cause of action shall not be deemed to accrue when the wrong is done or the technical breach of contract or duty occurs, but when the damage resulting therefrom is sustained and is capable of ascertainment…”

You will notice that my narrative is meticulously chronically dated. When I file my complaint naming The Simon Law Firm P.C. et al. as defendant one of the arguments that Simon Law will present in a Motion to Dismiss is that I acting pro se or with counsel have missed the five year statutory deal line based upon the language of RSMo Section 516.100. They will try and move the calendar back to a time where they can successfully argue “capabe of ascertainment”

However, I have now, by my own admission, upon publishing this vignette that my date of “capable of ascertainment” was January 21, 2024 at the “trial prep” meeting. Therefore, I must file my complaint before that date.

Simon may try to back the date up on the calendar and my argument is that suspicion, surmising, conjecture and the long protracted period of “cognitive dissonance” does not satisfy that threshold. The conclusion and the “ah ha” moment occurred on January 21st, 2024 and upon that date do I lock in my admission and testimony as to my conclusion.

I know what is required to litigate a “case within a case”. The expert witnesses and the metrics. We got the verdict on a doctor that had a one million dollars policy limit and the metrics that I presented to counsel in the email that was shared with opposing counsel for which Simon Law Firm did not retain an expert witness supported an economic compensatory damages award that exceeded the one million dollar policy limit.

The argument I will present is that were it not “but for” the tortious acts of non-feasance, misfeasance and malfeasance perpetrated by the associates and vicariously of the Simon Law Firm P.C. I albert B. Pepper Jr. could have realized the policy limit of one million dollars in contrast to the jury verdict of $40,000 with a comparative fault of 50/50 with an insurance subrogation lien of $20,000. A “net-zero” recover after five years of litigation that has left me consigned to living in a residential care facility. The testimony and evidence will support asking the jury to impose punitive damages.

Conclusion: Albert B. Pepper Jr. delivered a Spoliation / Letter To Preserve Evidence to The Simon Law Firm P.C. via email on June 17, 2024 and followed by a hard copy sent U.S.P.S. advising them that they would be named as defendants and that litigation is imminent. I am prepared to go the distance.

To my own personal amusement I sound like a crusader and not a plaintiff litigant. It is the literary style that I employ and with great personal amusement. However, I am pragmatic. This controversy, this claim that I will present to The Simon Law Firm P.C. and their indemnifier can be resolved via a pre-litigation demand package, during discovery through a mediated settlement agreement, a high / low agreement moments before the jury renders their verdict. Negotiations are always available and at any time until the checks are cut. If I retain and turn this over to legal counsel I will take repose and let counsel do what counsel does. Furthermore, I have a responsibility to show counsel all due deference as to how they wish to advance the case (it’s their time and resources) and if counsel wants to take it all the way to trial and seek a very credible punitive damages award I am prepared to go the distance.

/s/ Albert B. Pepper Jr. litigant pro se, consumer advocate, citizen journalist a.k.a. The Franken-Client.

For further information and extensive treatment of the subject visit the follow website, urls -

Shout It Our Loud Org - https://shoutitoutloud.org/

Jury-Watch Org - https://jury-watch.org/

(Not) The Friedman Law Firm Saint Charles - https://notthefriedmanlawfirmsaintcharles.com/