The Missouri Supreme Court suspended attorney Ryan Christopher McCarty indefinitely for violating professional conduct rules by disclosing confidential client information during his brief tenure with the Kansas City Police Department. The court's July 22 decision represents a significant disciplinary action that rejected McCarty's claims of constitutional and statutory protections for his disclosures.
McCarty, who was admitted to The Missouri Bar in 2010 with no prior disciplinary history, began working as associate general counsel for the Kansas City Police Department in June 2022. His employment lasted fewer than six months, ending with his termination on December 7, 2022. During this period, McCarty's relationship with KCPD's general counsel became increasingly contentious.
According to court records, McCarty believed the general counsel created a hostile work environment by demeaning him, assigning him "grunt" work, and treating him like a "glorified secretary." He felt "completely and unduly blackballed and ostracized from anything of importance" and "stonewalled" from significant departmental matters. These workplace tensions prompted McCarty to file a hostile work environment complaint with KCPD in early October 2022.
The Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel brought charges against McCarty, alleging he disclosed confidential client information in violation of Missouri's Rules of Professional Conduct. McCarty did not dispute that he made the disclosures but argued they were both required and warranted under professional conduct rules. He mounted a defense claiming his actions were protected under two separate legal theories: First Amendment free speech protections and Missouri's public-employee whistleblowing statute.
The case proceeded through Missouri's attorney disciplinary process, beginning with an evidentiary hearing before a disciplinary hearing panel. The panel found that McCarty had indeed violated the Rules of Professional Conduct but recommended only a reprimand as the appropriate sanction. However, the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel rejected this recommendation as too lenient and urged the Missouri Supreme Court to impose suspension instead.
The Missouri Supreme Court conducted a de novo review of the complete record, examining the evidence independently rather than deferring to the lower panel's findings. The court considered applicable standards for attorney discipline, weighing both mitigating and aggravating factors in McCarty's case. The mitigating factors included McCarty's clean disciplinary record over more than a decade of practice and the hostile work environment he encountered at KCPD.
Despite these considerations, the court ultimately rejected both of McCarty's legal defenses. The justices found that neither First Amendment protections nor Missouri's whistleblowing statute justified McCarty's disclosure of confidential client information. This ruling reinforces the fundamental principle that attorney-client privilege remains paramount in professional conduct, even when attorneys face workplace difficulties or believe they are exposing wrongdoing.
The court's decision to suspend McCarty indefinitely with no possibility of reinstatement for one year represents a substantial penalty in Missouri's disciplinary framework. This suspension prevents McCarty from practicing law in Missouri for at least 12 months and requires him to petition for reinstatement after that period, with no guarantee of approval.
The ruling highlights the tension between an attorney's duty to maintain client confidentiality and potential public interest in exposing governmental wrongdoing. While whistleblowing protections exist for public employees in many contexts, the Missouri Supreme Court determined these safeguards do not override the strict confidentiality requirements that govern attorney-client relationships.
This case serves as a cautionary reminder for attorneys working in government positions about the limits of professional conduct exceptions. Even when facing hostile work environments or potential misconduct, attorneys must carefully navigate disclosure decisions within the bounds of professional rules. The court's rejection of constitutional and statutory defenses suggests that traditional legal protections for government employees may not extend to attorney-client privileged information.
The indefinite suspension also demonstrates Missouri's commitment to enforcing professional conduct standards, even in complex situations involving workplace disputes and potential public interest concerns. The disciplinary action sends a clear message that attorney confidentiality obligations remain sacrosanct regardless of external pressures or constitutional claims.
McCarty's case may influence how other attorneys in government positions approach similar ethical dilemmas. The ruling establishes that workplace hostility and potential wrongdoing do not automatically justify breaching client confidentiality, even when attorneys believe they are serving the public interest through disclosure.
The decision becomes effective immediately, preventing McCarty from practicing law in Missouri. After the minimum one-year period, he may petition the court for reinstatement, though the indefinite nature of the suspension means approval is not guaranteed. The case illustrates the serious consequences attorneys face when professional conduct violations occur, particularly those involving the foundational principle of client confidentiality.