## Facts

- Sanford P. Krigel, a Missouri lawyer with an adoption practice, represented an 18-year-old pregnant woman in proceedings connected to adoption and termination of parental rights.
- The child’s biological father opposed adoption and stated he wanted to raise the child; Krigel knew the father would not consent.
- Krigel advised the mother not to share information about the pregnancy and birth with the father; the mother misrepresented the due date to the father to reduce the chance he would be present at birth.
- The father was not informed of the child’s birth, was not listed on the birth certificate, and the child was placed with prospective adoptive parents after a termination proceeding focused on the mother’s parental rights.
- In communications with the father’s attorney, Krigel stated the child would not be adopted absent the father’s consent, despite knowing adoption efforts were proceeding without that consent.
- At the termination hearing, Krigel elicited testimony implying the father had taken no action to assert parental rights since the birth, notwithstanding the concealment of the birth and related efforts that impeded timely action.
- The father later learned of the birth, intervened, and ultimately obtained custody of the child.
- Disciplinary counsel charged Krigel with violations of Rules 4-3.3(a)(3), 4-4.1(a), 4-4.4(a), and 4-8.4(d); a panel recommended indefinite suspension with leave to seek reinstatement after six months, and the matter proceeded to the Supreme Court of Missouri for de novo review.

## Issues

1. Whether Krigel knowingly offered false evidence to the tribunal in violation of Rule 4-3.3(a)(3) by presenting materially misleading testimony about the father’s lack of action.
2. Whether Krigel knowingly made a false statement of material fact to a third person in violation of Rule 4-4.1(a) by telling the father’s attorney adoption would not proceed without consent.
3. Whether Krigel used means with no substantial purpose other than to burden or delay a third person in violation of Rule 4-4.4(a) through concealment and related tactics affecting the father.
4. Whether Krigel engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 4-8.4(d).
5. What sanction was warranted.

## Decision

- The court found Krigel violated Rules 4-3.3(a)(3), 4-4.1(a), 4-4.4(a), and 4-8.4(d).
- The court imposed a six-month suspension, stayed its execution, and placed Krigel on a two-year probation subject to court-ordered conditions.
- The court declined to impose the panel’s recommended indefinite suspension, concluding a stayed suspension with probation better fit the misconduct and circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer violates the duty of candor by knowingly offering evidence that is materially false or misleading, including testimony that creates a false impression on a material point.
- A lawyer violates the duty of truthfulness to others by knowingly making a material false statement to a third person during representation, including misstatements that affect another party’s decisions about protecting legal rights.
- Conduct that intentionally burdens or delays a third person, without a substantial legitimate purpose, violates Rule 4-4.4(a).
- Manipulating court processes through deception or concealment in a way that impairs fairness and integrity of proceedings constitutes conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice under Rule 4-8.4(d).
- Sanctions consider the nature of the misconduct and its harms, along with aggravating and mitigating factors, to protect the public and deter future violations.

## Conclusion

The Missouri Supreme Court disciplined an adoption attorney for misleading opposing counsel and the tribunal and for tactics that burdened a nonclient father’s ability to assert parental rights, ordering a six-month suspension stayed on completion of two years’ probation.


In re Krigel, 480 S.W.3d 294 (Mo. 2016)