Missouri Supreme Court: Attorney Disbarred for Court Absences

On Tuesday, October 21, 2026, the Missouri Supreme Court disbarred attorney Matthew Alexander Perry for repeatedly failing to appear in court over 50 times within two years and failing to communicate promptly with clients, primarily in his role as a public defender representing criminal defendants and juveniles.

This disbarment underscores the severe consequences for attorneys who fail to uphold their fundamental professional responsibilities, particularly regarding court appearances and client communication, and highlights the judiciary's commitment to maintaining the integrity of the legal system and protecting the public, especially vulnerable clients like criminal defendants and juveniles. The prolonged nature of cases due to Perry's failures directly impacted the efficiency of the judicial process and the rights of those he represented.

The legal context for this action is rooted in the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct, which govern attorney behavior. The disbarment order specifically cited failures to provide competent representation, maintain prompt communication, take reasonable efforts to expedite litigation, and act with reasonable diligence, all of which are core tenets of these rules. The Missouri Supreme Court, as the highest judicial body in the state, possesses inherent authority over the admission and discipline of attorneys practicing within its jurisdiction, making its disciplinary decisions binding and significant.

The key parties involved in this matter are the Missouri Supreme Court, which issued the disbarment order, attorney Matthew Alexander Perry, and the numerous criminal defendants and juveniles he was appointed to represent as a public defender. The ABA Journal and KOMU provided reporting on the details of the case, bringing this disciplinary action to wider attention within the legal community.

Attorneys in Missouri must meticulously adhere to their professional obligations, particularly regarding court appearances and client communication, as the Supreme Court demonstrates a clear willingness to impose the most severe disciplinary sanctions, such as disbarment, for persistent breaches of these duties. This case serves as a stark reminder that consistent diligence and responsiveness are not merely best practices but fundamental requirements for maintaining one's license to practice law, with significant implications for client welfare and the administration of justice.