In re Krigel

An 18-year-old woman (birth mother) became pregnant by her boyfriend (birth father). The birth mother wanted to place the child for adoption. The birth father wanted to raise the child himself. The birth father retained attorney Jeff Zimmerman. The birth mother contacted Hillary Merryfield to explore her options and to obtain an attorney referral. Merryfield referred the birth mother to attorney Sanford Krigel (defendant). While Merryfield assisted the birth mother with the adoption, Krigel helped the birth mother terminate her parental rights. Krigel, who knew that the birth father would not consent to adoption, told the birth mother not to share any information about the child with the birth father. Krigel told Zimmerman that the child would not be adopted absent the birth father’s consent. Despite knowing that Merryfield was assisting the birth mother with the adoption, Krigel recommended that both parents meet with Merryfield for counseling. Following that meeting, Merryfield told Krigel that the birth father would not consent to adoption but would probably not affirmatively contest adoption. Although the birth mother was due in early April, she told the birth father that her due date had been moved back to early May in order to deceive him. The birth father was not informed about the child’s birth or listed on the birth certificate. At a hearing regarding the termination of the birth mother’s parental rights, the birth mother agreed, in response to Krigel’s questioning, that the birth father had not taken any action to assert his rights to the child since its birth. The trial court terminated the birth mother’s parental rights. Custody was transferred to the prospective adoptive parents. The birth father later learned of the child’s birth and intervened in the adoption proceedings. Ultimately, custody was awarded to the birth father. Thereafter, the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC) (plaintiff) filed an information against Krigel claiming that Krigel had violated Missouri Rule of Professional Conduct 4-4.4(a) by disregarding the rights of the birth father. The disciplinary hearing panel found that Krigel had violated Rule 4-4.4(a) and recommended indefinite suspension with leave to apply for reinstatement in six months. Krigel rejected the recommendation. The matter came before the Missouri Supreme Court.