Federal Lawsuit against the Missouri Bar

Suing for Justice

In the process of this divorce I wanted to file a complaint with the Missouri Bar over what was happening to me. Upon filing the complaint they informed me that they will not look into a complaint while a case is still open. This gives lawyers absolute immunity during the time a trial is open to any form of ethics enforcement. I decided this violated my civil rights and filed a lawsuit in Federal Court.

This lawsuit was dismissed and I have appealed it. It is now in front of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Here's the text of the lawsuit.

              IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
                     WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
                           SOUTHERN DISTRICT

                            CIVIL COMPLAINT
                            ---------------

Marc Perkel - pro se              )
                                  )
                                  )
                                  )
                                  )
vs.                               )  No. 95-3398-CV-S-3
                                  )
                                  )
                                  )
Supreme Court of Missouri         )
Disciplinary Counsel              )
                                  )
                                  )

Plaintiff:

   Marc Perkel
   411 North Sherman, Suite 300
   Springfield Mo. 65802
   417-866-1222 (office)
   Use Email (fax)
   marc@ctyme.mhs.compuserve.com (electronic mail)

Defendant:

   Supreme Court of Missouri
   Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel
   John E. Howe
   3335 American Ave.
   Jefferson City Mo. 65109
   314-635-7400 (voice)
   314-635-2240 (fax)

Statement of Claim:

   On 10-11-95 I filed a complaint with the Disciplinary Counsel against
   two attorneys, Bill Wear and Jim Sharp over a conflict of interest
   issue. Upon receiving the complaint I was informed that the Counsel
   would not review my complaint because it is their office procedure
   that they will not hear complaints against attorneys while a case is
   still pending.

   The legal system is self regulating and there is nothing to prevent
   attorneys from breaking the rules except for the Disciplinary
   Counsel. This office procedure allows attorneys to break the rules
   without any procedure for recourse by a citizen while a case is
   pending. It is saying that an attorney can not be disciplined while
   he is in the act of breaking the rules, but only after he has
   finished breaking the rules and the damage is done.

   This office procedure violates the equal protection clause of the
   14th amendment of the Constitution. It is also in direct violation of
   the preamble of Supreme Court Rule 4 which states as follows:

      "The legal profession's relative autonomy carries with it
      special responsibilities of self government. The profession
      has a responsibility to assure that its regulations are
      conceived in the public interest and not in furtherance of
      parochial or self-interested concerns of the bar."

   Clearly, this rule states that the interests of the public takes
   precidence over the self-interested concerns of attorneys. It is my
   position that this office procedure puts the self-interest of the bar
   ahead of the interests of the citizens whom the court system is
   supposed to serve, and therefore violates my civil rights.

   Note: I'm not coming before the Court to argue the merits of my
   complaint against the lawfirm. My position is that I don't have the
   opportunity to argue any complaint regardless of the merits.

Relief:

   1) I want the Court to order the Supreme Court of Missouri,
      Disciplinary Counsel, to overturn this office procedure.

   2) I want the Court to order an investigation into all procedures of
      the Disciplinary Counsel to determine if they are in compliance
      with the spirit of the preamble of Supreme Court Rule 4 and the
      equal protection clause of Amendment 14 of the United States
      Constitution.

Are the wrongs against me still occurring?

   Yes. Besides the complaint in question, I have several more
   complaints to file that I would like to be reviewed.

Do I claim actual or punitive damages?

   No.

Do I have an attorney?

   No.

Have I made an effort to contact a private attorney?

   No. I doubt that a private attorney would want to sue the Missouri
   Supreme Court for a ruling that would increase the ability of the
   Supreme Court to discipline attorneys.

Administrative Procedures:

Have I tried using administrative procedures?

   Yes.

                                     Signature of Plaintiff

                                     ______________________

Verification:

State of MISSOURI
County of GREENE

________________________________ being first duly sworn under oath,

presents that he is the plaintiff in this action; that he knows the

content of the complaint; and that the information contained therein is

true to the best of his knowledge and belief.

                                     Signature of Plaintiff

                                     ______________________

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO

before me this _______ day of ________________ 1995.

___________________________________________________

NOTARY PUBLIC

My commission expires _____________________________.

Appeal - Appealing this to the Eighth Circuit Court.
Brief - Brief I filed with the Court