St. Louis attorney Jonathan W. Belsky, first admitted to the bar about 37 years ago, is no longer on probation following a Nov. 2 Missouri Supreme Court order after being reinstated about three years ago after his 2001 disbarment.
Acting on a motion filed by Belsky for order of successful completion of his probation and in consideration of the response of the Missouri State Bar’s chief disciplinary counsel about his motion, the high court terminated Belsky's probation, according to the order signed by Chief Justice Zel M. Fischer. The order effectively restores Belsky to fully practice of law in Missouri without being on probation.
Belsky was admitted to the bar in Missouri on April 26, 1980, according to his profile at the Missouri State Bar's website.
Belsky was disbarred by default in 2001 and eventually became homeless after a client complained that Belsky failed to take timely action in regard to his case, had not returned his phone calls and did not return documents, according to a 2014 news report.
Belsky, then practicing in University City, also was disbarred from practicing law before the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2002, according to an order handed down by that court.
Belsky petitioned the Missouri Supreme Court for reinstatement in 2014, telling that court that, in the period leading up to his disbarment, he suffered chronic depression that was exacerbated by a contentious divorce involving a child with special needs, according to the news report.
Belsky's petition for reinstatement was sustained and he was reinstated Oct. 28, 2014, and placed on two years' probation, according to that month's Missouri Supreme Court order and the state high court's annual report for that year. That order reinstated Belsky as a member of the Missouri Bar in good standing and his probation period began at the date of that order.
Belsky's probation requirements included passing the Multi State Professional Responsibility Examination within 12 months of the date of the 2014 order. He also was required to agree to mental and physical health care monitoring as deemed appropriate by the chief disciplinary counsel, according to the order, and was required to pay costs.