IN RE: William Patrick HOGAN (2026)

The Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (“OCDC”) alleges William Hogan violated the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to keep adequate client trust account records, co-mingling client and personal funds in his client trust account, and concealing the dismissal of his client's (“B.B.”) personal injury lawsuit filed in Texas. Following a de novo review of the record, this Court holds the preponderance of the evidence shows Hogan violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct. Disbarment is warranted because he engaged in a pattern of misconduct by failing to prosecute his client's case and concealing the resulting dismissal for more than three years, resulting in serious injury to the client.

Background

Hogan was licensed as a Missouri attorney in 1994. In 2021, OCDC admonished him for failing to keep client funds in a separate client trust account in violation of Rules 4-1.15 and 4-5.3. Hogan acknowledged the need to keep complete records and stated he would do so. In April 2024, OCDC filed the underlying information. The disciplinary hearing panel held a hearing regarding Hogan's continuing failure to accurately account for client funds and his representation of B.B. in the Texas personal injury case. The disciplinary hearing panel found Hogan violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct and recommended disbarment.¹ OCDC accepted the decision. Hogan rejected it. Hogan does not dispute the disciplinary hearing panel's conclusion he violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct. He concedes “deficiencies in the management and recordkeeping of his trust account” and “serious failures” in the Texas personal injury case. The record confirms the violations the disciplinary hearing panel found. The dispute centers on the appropriate discipline. OCDC seeks disbarment. Hogan argues this Court should impose discipline no greater than a stayed suspension with one year of probation.

Standard of Review

This Court reviews attorney disciplinary matters de novo. Rule 5.19(e). “De novo review requires this Court to independently determine all issues pertaining to credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence, and draw its own conclusions of law.” In re Arensberg, 727 S.W.3d 119, 124 (Mo. banc 2026) (alterations and internal quotation omitted). “Professional misconduct must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence before discipline will be imposed.” Id. (internal quotation omitted).

Client Trust Account

In 2023, following a client complaint, OCDC audited Hogan's client trust account. After Hogan failed to respond to multiple document requests, OCDC subpoenaed his bank records, trust account ledger, his ledger for client M.Z., and a detailed description of his trust accounting practices. Hogan produced some responsive documents but did not produce the client ledger or a description of his trust account practices.

In August 2023, OCDC requested additional information regarding other specific transactions for other clients. OCDC identified the transactions in a spreadsheet and requested the associated client ledgers, the type and dates of Hogan's representation, and a copy of any settlement statements. OCDC also requested that Hogan identify the client associated with four highlighted transactions. OCDC asked for the documents by August 23, 2023. Hogan did not produce the documents.

OCDC was unable to reconcile transactions related to multiple clients. In October 2023, OCDC requested Hogan's billing information for those clients. Hogan did not respond. After additional OCDC requests and missed deadlines, Hogan produced some of the requested information in January 2024.

An OCDC investigator testified the records Hogan produced made it impossible to conduct a three-way reconciliation of this trust account. The records showed Hogan was not consistently separating client funds from his earned fees. In some cases, he deposited client funds into the client trust account and withdrew them on the same day. In other cases, he deposited client funds into the client trust account but did not withdraw them for up to a year after the cases were dismissed or finally resolved. In one case involving client G.B., Hogan withdrew $1,500 from his client trust account for fees even though G.B. had no funds remaining in the trust account. The OCDC investigator testified, while she did not find Hogan misappropriated client funds, she lacked sufficient records to complete her investigation.

Hogan's failure to adequately maintain his client trust account violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 4-1.15(a) provides “[a] lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in a lawyer's possession in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer's own property.” Hogan violated Rule 4-1.15(a) because he comingled personal funds with client funds by not promptly withdrawing earned fees – his property – from the client trust account. Hogan also violated Rule 4-1.15(a)(7) by failing to conduct reasonably prompt reconciliations of his client trust account. He violated Rule 4-1.15(f) by failing to maintain complete records of his client trust account. Critically, Hogan's violation of Rule 4-1.15(f) follows OCDC's prior admonition for similar misconduct and creates an inference that he knowingly violated the rules governing client trust accounts. In re Farris, 472 S.W.3d 549, 561 (Mo. banc 2015).

Rule 4-1.15(c) provides:

A lawyer shall deposit into a client trust account legal fees and expenses that have been paid in advance, to be withdrawn by the lawyer only as fees are earned or expenses incurred, except that an advanced flat fee which does not exceed $2,000 is exempted from this requirement and may be deposited into another account.

Hogan violated Rule 4-1.5(c) by withdrawing funds from the client trust account before he earned the fees. At the disciplinary hearing, Hogan produced engagement letters from clients B.N. and B.G. stating the fees were considered earned when Hogan entered his appearance. In both cases, however, he deposited more than $2,000 into his client trust account when he entered his appearance and withdrew the funds days later despite the fact the cases were ongoing and unresolved.

Hogan also violated Rules 4-8.1(c) and 4-8.4. He violated Rule 4-8.1(c) by repeatedly failing to timely respond to OCDC's lawful requests for information regarding his client trust account. He violated Rule 4-8.4(a) by violating the Rules of Professional Conduct. He violated Rule 4-8.4(c), which prohibits a lawyer from “engag[ing] in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation[,]” by telling OCDC he withdrew earned fees from the client trust account based on specific accounting practices that he, in fact, did not have.

Personal Injury Action

Additional serious violations arise from Hogan's representation of B.B., who was injured in a car accident in Texas allegedly caused by a drunk driver. B.B. hired Hogan in May 2015. The statute of limitations was set to expire December 19, 2016. B.B. provided Hogan with information about the accident and his injuries. Hogan is not licensed in Texas. He employed local counsel on December 15, 2016. Hogan and local counsel agreed Hogan would receive 90 percent of attorney fees and local counsel would receive the remainder. Local counsel filed suit in Texas on December 19, 2016.

Local counsel testified Hogan was the primary attorney responsible for client contact, discovery, and drafting pleadings. Local counsel further testified the fact Hogan was to receive 90 percent of any attorney fees confirmed this understanding. Consistent with this understanding, local counsel did not contact B.B. directly and expected Hogan to work with B.B. to obtain discovery responses. All documents filed in the case were served to Hogan via his “global.net” email address, which Hogan testified was his “correct” email address.² When the defendant filed discovery requests due in May 2017, local counsel repeatedly tried to contact Hogan to obtain discovery responses. Hogan did not respond.

In July 2017, Hogan responded to local counsel, explaining he had been on an extended vacation and the attorney he assigned to the case “dropped the ball.” Hogan told local counsel he was addressing the late discovery. He did not. The defendant filed motions to compel. Local counsel could not get a response from Hogan and, on October 3, 2017, filed a motion to withdraw. The motion was served on Hogan by email and certified mail. Hogan did not respond. The Texas court sustained the motion to withdraw.

On December 18, 2017, a defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. On January 19, 2018, the Texas court dismissed B.B.’s case without prejudice. Hogan did not seek to reinstate the case, and, as a result, B.B.’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations.

Hogan did not inform B.B. his case was dismissed and time-barred. Instead, for the next three and a half years, Hogan largely ignored B.B.’s repeated telephone calls, text messages, and emails inquiring about the status of his case. When Hogan did communicate with B.B., he falsely indicated the case was ongoing and in settlement negotiations. For instance, in December 2019, Hogan emailed B.B., stating he was “available next week to discuss your matter and will be happy to do so.” Hogan attached a copy of the Texas petition filed in the B.B.’s case, even though it had been dismissed nearly a year earlier.

In April 2020, B.B. informed Hogan that medical bills from the accident were negatively impacting his credit, making it difficult for him to expand his business, and buy a home. Hogan emailed B.B. and his real estate agent, stating he was assisting B.B. with resolving medical debts and that “said matters are currently pending[.]” Once again, Hogan did not disclose that B.B.’s case had been dismissed and was time-barred.

In addition to numerous emails, B.B. sent text messages to Hogan asking for an update about his case. Hogan sometimes responded with promises to “talk later” or call “tomorrow,” but he never did. Hogan testified he first became aware B.B.’s claim was dismissed in May 2021. Hogan then called B.B. and told him the “ball was dropped” on his case. B.B. testified he did not know what that meant and he still did not know his case had been dismissed.

In the summer of 2021, B.B. hired a new attorney and requested that Hogan return the case file and all documents. B.B.’s new attorney informed B.B. that his case had been dismissed three and one half years earlier. The new attorney also advised B.B. that a legal malpractice action was not practical because Hogan did not have legal malpractice insurance. B.B. requested that Hogan email his case file as soon as possible. Hogan did not provide B.B. with his case file.

Hogan violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct while representing B.B. Rule 4-1.1 provides a “lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client.” Rule 4-1.3 provides a “lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.” Similarly, Rule 4-3.2 provides a “lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.” Hogan violated these rules by engaging in a pattern of misconduct by failing to respond to discovery requests, failing to work with local counsel, and failing to take action to reinstate B.B.’s case when it was dismissed.

Rule 4-1.2(c) provides a “lawyer may limit the scope of representation if the client gives informed consent in writing signed by the client to the essential terms of the representation and the lawyer's limited role.” Hogan violated Rule 4-1.2(c) by limiting his representation and expecting local counsel to assume primary responsibility for the case without B.B.’s written consent.

Rule 4-1.16(d) provides, when a lawyer terminates representation, the lawyer must take reasonably practicable steps to protect the client's interests, including “surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled[.]” Hogan violated Rule 4-1.16(d) by not returning B.B.’s client files after B.B. requested them.

Finally, Hogan violated Rules 4-8.4(a), 4-8.4(c) and 4-8.4(d). Rule 4-8.4(a) prohibits a lawyer from violating or attempting to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 4-8.4(c) prohibits a lawyer from “engag[ing] in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.” Hogan violated Rule 4-8.4(c) by, for more than three years, misleading B.B. into believing his case was active and that settlement negotiations were ongoing.³ He violated Rule 4-8.4(d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, by not responding to discovery requests and failing to prosecute B.B.’s personal injury lawsuit.

Disbarment is Warranted

Rule 5.17(b) provides that, when determining the appropriate discipline for an attorney's violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, this Court may consider: (1) recommendations from the parties; (2) a recommendation from the hearing panel; (3) discipline imposed by this Court in previously reported decisions; (4) the ABA Model Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (“ABA Standards”); (5) the mental health considerations set forth in Rule 5.285; (6) the probation criteria set forth in Rule 5.175; (7) prior accepted admonitions; and (8) any other appropriate factor. “When an attorney violates multiple rules, discipline is determined with respect to the most serious violation, and the fact there were multiple violations becomes an aggravating factor.” In re Goldstein, 727 S.W.3d 443, 447 (Mo. banc 2026). The purpose of disciplinary sanctions is “to protect the public and preserve the integrity of the legal profession.” In re Neill, 681 S.W.3d 194, 198 (Mo. banc 2024) (internal quotation omitted).

Disbarment is typically reserved for intentional misconduct, which is defined as acting with “the conscious objective or purpose to accomplish a particular result.” Arensberg, 727 S.W.3d at 124. In some cases, however, a lawyer's violation of the most fundamental duties owed to a client may warrant disbarment even if the lawyer did not act to intentionally violate the rules or harm the client. Diligence is among “the most important ethical duties” a lawyer owes to a client. ABA Standards, Theoretical Framework. Consistent with the fundamental importance of diligence, “[d]isbarment is generally appropriate when ․ a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect with respect to client matters and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client.” ABA Standards § 4.41(c).

Hogan's repeated violations of Rule 4-1.3 by failing to represent B.B. diligently falls squarely within ABA Standard 4.41(c). Hogan established a pattern of neglecting B.B.’s case from the moment local counsel filed suit. Hogan's total failure to cooperate with local counsel or take any other action to prosecute B.B.’s case predictably led to the case being dismissed. For the next three and a half years, Hogan largely ignored B.B.’s repeated, reasonable requests for basic information about his case. When Hogan did communicate with B.B., Hogan never told him the case had been dismissed and, instead, indicated settlement negotiations were ongoing. As a result of Hogan's neglect, deflection, and concealment, B.B.’s personal injury action time became barred, leaving him with outstanding medical debts and credit problems. Hogan's years-long pattern of neglect caused actual injury to B.B.’s interests. Consistent with ABA Standard 4.41(c), disbarment is the “generally appropriate” discipline for Hogan's misconduct.⁴

Hogan argues his remorse, acceptance of responsibility, history of community service, efforts to address problems with his law practice, and evidence of his good character mitigate his misconduct and favor a stayed suspension. There are, however, aggravating factors. Hogan's concealment of the fact B.B.’s case was dismissed and time-barred, while misleading B.B. into believing settlement negotiations were ongoing, demonstrates a dishonest or selfish motive. ABA Standard 9.22(b). His representation of B.B., coupled with his continued violation of client trust account rules, demonstrates a pattern of misconduct with multiple offenses. ABA Standard 9.22(c)-(d). Hogan also failed to produce all documents necessary for OCDC to fully and accurately audit his client trust account, leaving “the precise scope and consequences of his actions ․ unknown.” Goldstein, 727 S.W.3d at 448. Finally, Hogan has substantial experience in the practice of law. ABA Standard 9.22(i).

Hogan also argues this Court's reported disciplinary decisions, typified by In re Gardner, 565 S.W.3d 670 (Mo. banc 2019), should result in a stayed suspension. “What the Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit and allow, and examples of what evidence will suffice to establish a violation, are matters of law on which this Court's precedent rightly should be consulted.” Goldstein, 727 S.W.3d at 448. However, unlike the stare decisis effect of this Court's reported opinions resolving legal questions, the discipline imposed in prior, seemingly similar cases is not dispositive. This flows from the fact that determining the appropriate discipline is a “discretionary calculation based on the totality of the circumstances in each case.” Id. While the law governing a lawyer's ethical obligations is consistent, the facts of different cases rarely are. The inevitable factual differences informing discretionary disciplinary decisions mean analogies to this Court's reported disciplinary opinions are usually “a thin reed on which to rely.” Id.

Hogan's reliance on Gardner illustrates the inherent limitations in any argument that the discipline ordered in one case compels the same discipline in a different case. In Gardner, the lawyer was serving as the personal representative of an estate. 565 S.W.3d at 672. The circuit ordered the remainder of the lawyer's fee to be paid when the estate closed. Id. The lawyer violated the court's order by paying himself the remainder of his fee prior to closing the estate. Id. at 673. The parties agreed the lawyer paid himself the amount to which he was entitled once the estate closed. Id. The lawyer later filed the final settlement listing the correct amount of fees owed to him, but he omitted the fact he had already paid himself the remainder of the fee. Id. The bank statements attached to the settlement showed the payment. Id. This Court found the lawyer's “misconduct was an isolated instance” and he did not intend to take money to which was not entitled. Id. at 678. Instead, the lawyer “erroneously and negligently believed this conduct would be acceptable.” Id. at 680. Under these circumstances, this Court imposed an indefinite suspension with no leave to apply for reinstatement for six months, with the suspension being stayed and subject to a one-year probation term. Id.

Hogan's case is obviously distinguishable from Gardner. Unlike the lawyer in Gardner, Hogan's misconduct was not an “isolated” incident based on a negligent misunderstanding of his obligations. Unlike in Gardner, in which the client did not suffer enduring harm, Hogan engaged in a years-long pattern of misconduct causing serious harm to his client, B.B. Unlike Gardner, Hogan's pattern of misconduct causing serious harm to his client carries a presumptive sanction of disbarment. ABA Standard § 4.41(c). Gardner is inapposite.⁵ Hogan's reliance on Gardner is misplaced.

Conclusion

Hogan's repeated violation of the rules governing client trust accounts, coupled with his pattern of neglect with respect to B.B. and concealing the dismissal of B.B.’s case, are serious violations warranting disbarment. The mitigating factors do not justify a lesser sanction. This Court orders Hogan disbarred.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The disciplinary hearing panel found Hogan violated: Rule 4-1.1 (competence); Rule 4-1.15(a) (safekeeping property); Rule 4-1.15(a)(7) (client trust account reconciliation); Rule 4-1.15(c) (withdrawal of earned fees); Rule 4-1.15(f) (client trust account records); Rule 4-1.16(d) (protecting client interests upon termination of representation); Rule 4-1.2(c) (scope of representation); Rule 4-1.3 (diligence); Rules 4-1.4(a)(1), 4-1.4(a)(2), and 4-1.4(b) (communication); Rule 4-3.2 (expediting litigation); Rule 4-8.1(c) (responding to a lawful demand from disciplinary authority); Rule 4-8.4(a) (violating the Rules of Professional Conduct); Rule 4-8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation); and Rule 4-8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).

2.   At the disciplinary hearing, Hogan testified he may have missed some emails sent to a “law.net” email address he could no longer access. He testified other emails may have gone to a spam folder. Hogan, however, also testified his “global.net” email address is the “correct email address” and almost every email introduced into evidence at the hearing was sent or copied to the correct “global.net” email address.

3.   This conduct also violated Rules 4-1.4(a)(1), 4-1.4(a)(2), and 4-1.4(b), which collectively require a lawyer to keep the client “reasonably informed” about the status of the case, to “promptly comply with reasonable requests for information[,]” and to reasonably explain the matter so the client can make informed decisions.

4.   Because Hogan has committed “acts warranting disbarment,” he is ineligible for probation. Neill, 681 S.W.3d at 199 (citing Rule 5.225(a)(2)(C)) (internal quotation omitted).

5.   Hogan also cites In re Miller, 568 S.W.2d 246 (Mo. banc 1978), and In re Elliott, 694 S.W.2d 262 (Mo. banc 1985), to support his argument a stayed suspension is appropriate. In Miller, the lawyer misappropriated $30,000 from a mentally incapacitated client. 568 S.W.2d at 249. The Court issued a public reprimand and ordered the lawyer to withdraw from any role involving fiduciary responsibility for the property of others. Id. at 254-55. This Court takes seriously its obligation to protect the public and the integrity of the profession, and no Missouri attorney should assume the misappropriation of client funds will result in a reprimand. In Elliott, this Court reprimanded an attorney who maintained poor records, held insufficient funds in his trust account, mishandled deposits, and failed to forward timely payments to clients. 694 S.W.2d at 263. This Court issued a reprimand “because thus far the conduct has resulted in neither financial benefit to the respondent nor financial loss to the clients.” Id. at 266. Aside from the distinct possibility that today's Court may view the fact pattern in Elliott through a stricter lens, the purported analogy to Elliott ignores the fact Hogan's misconduct negated B.B.’s avenue for legal recourse and discounts Hogan's three and half year effort to mislead him as a fleeting oversight.

Zel M. Fischer, Judge

All concur.