ST. LOUIS — The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District has upheld a ruling in favor of a lawyer who had been hired and later sued by former real estate agents whose licenses were revoked for preparing financing applications that contained false information about buyers' ability to repay.
According to the April 10 ruling, Cristian Joel Juan and Anthony Joseph Adewunmi faced criminal charges brought by the federal government in June 2010 following a settlement they reached with the Missouri Real Estate Commission (MREC) in January 2010.
Juan and Adewunmi had hired attorney Gary Growe to represent them in disciplinary proceedings brought by the MREC, and based upon Growe's advice, they entered into a settlement with MREC.
The government then based its charges against the two from information in the settlement agreement, which contained a joint stipulation of facts and conclusions of law referencing seven counts related to seven separate real estate transactions occurring in St. Louis from August 2003 to August 2005, the ruling states.
In their criminal prosecution, Juan and Adewunmi hired a different law firm to represent them and through a plea agreement, they pled guilty to one of the seven counts in exchange for the dismissal of the other six charges.
The ruling states that the plaintiffs did not appeal or file any post-conviction motions while their sentences were in effect.
After serving their sentences, they filed a legal malpractice claim against Growe. He moved to add his firm -- Growe, Eisen & Karlen -- as a counter plaintiff so the firm could file a claim for breach of contract against Adewunmi for money he failed to pay for representing him before the MREC.
In the case before St. Louis County Circuit Judge Joseph L. Walsh, the court granted summary judgment for Growe on the malpractice claim and for his firm on the breach of contract counterclaims.
A three-judge appeals panel that included Judges Philip M. Hess, Lisa P. Page and Roy L. Richter affirmed Walsh's ruling.
On the malpractice claim, they held that allowing the plaintiffs to maintain their claims against Growe "would allow Plaintiffs to take advantage of their own criminal conduct, engender disrespect for the courts, and discredit the administration of justice."