What is the professional status of Anthony R. Friedman in the St. Louis Legal Community?

What is the professional status of Anthony R. Friedman in the St. Louis Legal Community?

A survey of the professional landscape within the St. Louis, St. Charles legal community with regard to Anthony R. Friedman d/b/a Friedman Law Firm LLC presents a rather distressing business and professional profile that has become notable among legal professionals and the general public beginning shortly after Friedman began his solo practice.

Herein is a summary of the a much broader scope of aberrant business and professional conduct for the purpose of ease of general comprehension. At the bottom of this article are links for further context and consideration.

Deterioration of Professional Credibility: Friedman's reputation among local peers and the public has faced severe scrutiny following the exposure of his recent litigation actions and internal firm departures: [1, 2]

• Trial Record Disclosures: Public accounts and statements attributed to former colleagues at The Simon Law Firm have damaged his reputation as an effective courtroom advocate, with disclosures alleging he had lost seven out of eight cases he personally took to trial. [1]
• The Protection Order Backfire: His standing as an officer of the court took a critical hit in May 2026 when a St. Charles County judge dismissed his petition for a protection order with prejudice. Legal observers noted that filing a physical stalking claim against a severely disabled, car-less individual living 95 miles away demonstrated a lack of candor to the court and was widely interpreted as an abusive, bad-faith attempt to silence a whistleblower. [1]
• Lack of Malpractice Insurance: Public transparency campaigns targeting his solo venture, The Friedman Law Firm LLC, revealed that as of early 2025, he operated without a professional liability insurance policy. This lack of coverage has alienated peers who view it as an unacceptable risk to consumers and a departure from standard, responsible practice metrics. Current coverage and policy limits are at this time unknown. [1, 2]

Formal Regulatory Jeopardy: An attorney's ultimate standing is dictated by their bar status. Friedman is currently facing an active, formal investigation by the Missouri Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (File #25-2531-X). Because the OCDC has formally accepted jurisdiction over the extensive misconduct complaints—compounded by his recent failed court filings—his long-term status and authorization to practice law in Missouri remain under significant threat. [1, 2]

In summary: While he has the technical baseline of a seasoned personal injury attorney, his current standing in the St. Louis metropolitan area has been deeply compromised by highly visible allegations of malpractice, erratic litigation tactics, and an ongoing ethics probe. The professional accolades that are presented when a key word search result are performed have been noted to be outdated and as much as 5-7 years old while he was with The Simon Law Firm P.C. - No notable accolades or awards have been granted since Friedmans departure from the Simon Law Firm. [1, 2]

One further note: Former colleagues at The Simon Law Firm P.C. have made statements that quote: "He lost seven out of eight cases he took to trial and that is why he is no longer with the firm". - Elizabeth S. Lenivy

Below are some of the highlights of the controversy that bring Anthony R. Friedmans legal competence and acumen into question:

Active Missouri Bar Disciplinary InvestigationAs of February 17, 2026, the Missouri Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC) accepted jurisdiction and formally opened an investigative file (File #25-2531-X) against Friedman. The 37-page complaint filed by his former client alleges a severe pattern of professional misconduct during their attorney-client relationship between 2019 and 2023. [1, 2, 3]The primary ethical violations under investigation include: [1, 3]

• Misleading Guarantees: Allegations that Friedman promised the client substantial punitive damages (10 to 20 times compensatory damages) while failing to disclose a $1,000,000 policy cap, leaving the client with unrealistic expectations for over three years. [1]
• Discovery & Trial Failures: Allegations that he failed to secure key evidence, missed critical medical records, and failed to adequately prepare the client or witnesses for depositions. [1]
• Breach of Confidentiality: Accusations that Friedman shared privileged client emails and information with opposing counsel during a 2023 mediation without consent. [1, 2]
• Improper Case Abandonment: Claims that Friedman abruptly withdrew from the case mid-mediation to depart his previous employer, The Simon Law Firm, P.C., transferring the matter to an inexperienced junior associate right before the case collapsed. [1, 2]

The Failed "Ex Parte Order of Protection" Controversy [1]In April 2026, Friedman attempted to legally suppress his former client’s aggressive public whistleblowing campaign by filing a petition for an Ex Parte Order of Protection in St. Charles County Court, alleging physical stalking and harassment. [1, 2]The filing heavily backfired in court: [1] This is perhaps the most devastating and obvious example of incompetence and poor judgement whereas Albert B. Pepper Jr acting litigant pro se filed his own Responsive Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice wherein the Motion was granted in full without amendments or stipulation by Hon. William Byrnes.

• Objective Physical Impossibility: The former client, acting pro se (representing himself), proved to the court that it was physically impossible for him to stalk Friedman. The client is a 64-year-old disabled man who relies on a cane, does not own a vehicle, and resides in a supervised care facility 95 miles away in Doe Run, Missouri. [1, 2, 3]
• Dismissal with Prejudice: On May 16, 2026, the court dismissed Friedman's protection order with prejudice. Critics and legal advocates characterized Friedman’s petition as a bad-faith "SLAPP suit" (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) intended to weaponize the court system to censor a whistleblower. The failed filing was subsequently added to the OCDC's active ethical investigation as a suspected abuse of process. [1, 2, 3]

Misrepresentation of Solo Practice Infrastructure [1]Public advocacy groups have also challenged how Friedman markets his solo practice, The Friedman Law Firm LLC, in St. Charles. Critics have filed complaints alleging consumer deception because his advertised business address (6209 Mid Rivers Mall Dr. #204) is actually a rented mailbox at a local UPS Store, rather than a physical "brick-and-mortar" law office. Further complaints have been sent to Super Lawyers demanding the removal of his historical "Rising Star" accolades, arguing they misrepresent his current solo resources. [1, 2, 3]Friedman has been served with formal notices to preserve evidence in anticipation of a forthcoming civil legal malpractice lawsuit regarding these matters. [1, 2]

The choice of an attorney is an important decision and should not be based upon old, irrelevant "Super Lawyer", AVVO, Martindale Hubbell, Best Lawyers, Missouri Lawyers Media advertisements that were granted as a result of Friedmans employment with The Simon Law Firm P.C.