The Missouri Supreme Court unanimously disbarred attorney Brian Todd Goldstein on Jan. 23, 2026, for repeated, intentional ethics violations.
Disbarment removes an attorney's authority to practice law. The court found that Goldstein mishandled client funds and acted dishonestly while obtaining, representing and billing clients. The findings appear in the court's decision in Supreme Court of Missouri case SC101182.
Table of Contents
- How Goldstein violated trust-account rules
- Undisclosed clients and firm resources
- How much money was involved
- Why the court chose disbarment
How Goldstein violated trust-account rules
Missouri Rule 4-1.15(a) requires attorneys to keep client or third-party property separate from their own property. The court found Goldstein intentionally and repeatedly violated that safeguard. Goldstein told clients their money would be held in his firm's trust account.
Instead, the court found, he kept checks in his basement and deposited payments into his personal account. These practices denied clients and the firm the protections that come with properly segregated funds. The Missouri supreme Court found that the conduct caused serious actual and potential injuries.
Undisclosed clients and firm resources
Goldstein accepted clients without informing his firm, Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho, known as CMDA. Neither the firm nor the affected clients knew about or consented to his arrangements. He nevertheless used CMDA's letterhead, associates and other resources for those matters.
That concealed the work from the firm while making it appear connected to firm operations. The court also found repeated, intentional violations of Rule 4-8.4(c). That rule prohibits dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, including misconduct connected to obtaining, representing and billing clients.
📨 Get Free News Stories Alerts
Free · No spam · Unsubscribe anytime
How much money was involved
CMDA's investigation linked more than $585,000 in misappropriated funds to over 100 clients. Goldstein disputed that total. He agreed to pay CMDA $341,790 to settle.
The settlement amount should not be treated as the full measure of the conduct because the court did not find that it resolved the precise scope of the losses. The documented figures establish substantial misconduct, but not a complete accounting. According to the court's findings on Goldstein's concealment, the full extent and consequences remained unknown.
Why the court chose disbarment
The court considered factors that could have supported a lesser sanction. Goldstein had no prior discipline, made a restitution payment and presented character evidence. Those points did not outweigh the aggravating factors.
The court cited a selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses and Goldstein's refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing. The decision reflects more than an isolated bookkeeping failure. The Missouri Supreme Court's unanimous ruling rested on repeated, intentional conduct involving client property, undisclosed legal work and dishonesty.
You Might Also Like
- Supreme Court weighs Colorado universal preschool nondiscrimination policy
- How a Case Reaches the Supreme Court
- Pennsylvania Skill Games Face October 13 Deadline After Court Ruling