Missouri Supreme Court
JEFFERSON CITY — The Missouri Supreme Court has indefinitely suspended the law license of an attorney with no leave to apply for reinstatement for one year, after finding he knowingly disclosed confidential information obtained while serving as associate general counsel for the Kansas City Police Department (KCPD).
McCarty
The court concluded Ryan Christopher McCarty violated two key Rules of Professional Conduct related to former client confidentiality, despite his arguments that he acted as a whistleblower in the public interest, according to a July 22 opinion of the Missouri Supreme Court.
McCarty, who had been a licensed attorney since 2010 with no prior disciplinary record, was employed by KCPD from June to December 2022.
Less than six months into his tenure, he was terminated for what KCPD described as unsatisfactory performance during his probationary period. In the weeks leading up to his termination, McCarty began saving emails and taking detailed notes about his experiences and concerns within the department, including allegations of hostile work conditions and problematic policies related to record retention, Sunshine Law compliance and Brady/Giglio disclosures.
Immediately following his termination, McCarty sent an email to two U.S. Department of Justice investigators involved in an ongoing investigation of KCPD, the opinion states.
Identifying himself as the former associate general counsel, he disclosed names of employees who had filed internal complaints and offered to provide the DOJ with internal documents he had retained. Three days later, McCarty distributed an eight-page “letter to the world” and 372 pages of attachments—including internal KCPD communications—to more than 140 individuals, including lawmakers, prosecutors, public defenders, journalists, and other stakeholders.
The letter criticized KCPD leadership, called for resignations and previewed documents he had collected, many of which included legal advice and sensitive internal matters.
The Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC) filed a disciplinary case against McCarty in December 2023, citing violations of Rules 4-1.9(c)(1) and 4-1.9(c)(2), which prohibit lawyers from revealing or using information from prior client representations to the client’s disadvantage.
McCarty admitted he had made the disclosures but argued they were justified under several legal and constitutional protections, including the First Amendment, Missouri’s public-employee whistleblower statute, and exceptions in the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Missouri Supreme Court rejected McCarty’s defenses. The Court found that Rule 4-1.13(b), which allows attorneys to report internal misconduct to higher organizational authorities, did not apply to McCarty because he made his disclosures after being terminated and failed to minimize the risk of revealing client information.
The court also ruled that Missouri’s Sunshine Law, whistleblower protections, and the constitutional principles cited did not authorize McCarty’s disclosures, nor did they excuse his breach of client confidentiality. The court noted that information remains confidential until a valid legal request compels its disclosure, and McCarty had neither obtained consent from KCPD nor received such a request.
In its analysis, the court considered several aggravating and mitigating factors. Aggravating factors included a pattern of misconduct, McCarty’s refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his actions, and his substantial legal experience. Mitigating factors included his previously unblemished disciplinary record, cooperation with the investigation, and numerous character witnesses attesting to his good reputation and ethics.
Ultimately, the Court concluded McCarty knowingly violated his duty to maintain client confidentiality, a duty it called “a fundamental principle in the client-lawyer relationship.”
It stated that while McCarty may have believed he acted for the public good, his disclosures harmed the trust between client and counsel, particularly within a public institution like KCPD, which relies on legal guidance in the public interest.
“The public benefits from public entities seeking advice and counsel from trusted attorneys,” the court wrote. “To ignore McCarty’s serious breach of client confidentiality would irreparably damage the legal profession, public entities, and the public’s trust in both.”
Chief Justice W. Brent Powell issued the opinion. All justices concurred.
Missouri Supreme Court case number: SC100905
