Her First Appellate Appearance was a Disaster

---

 Her First Appellate Appearance Was A Disaster | Elizabeth C. McNulty

What Missouri Lawyers Media refers to as a “milestone” for advocacy, the fact of the matter is that the first appellate level appearance by Elizabeth C. McNulty of The Simon Law Firm P.C. was virtually a total loss for her client. A total loss.

In the October 9, 2024 edition of  Missouri Lawyers Media Up & Coming Awards profile states with regard to McNulty: "1)This year, she handled her first appeal and 2)secured a plaintiff’s verdict as first chair for a medical malpractice trial." Although it does not cite the case numbers or parties it gives further contextual evidence that the cases were decided in January 2024 and July 2024 to narrow the scope. 

Available information with regard to the appellate case suggests that this is in reference to an appeal titled “Gregory Frost, respondent v. PCRMC Medical Group, appellant case # SD37969 wherein a Majority Opinion was filed on July 10, 2024 and a Transmittal Letter - Mandate Final on July 26, 2024. McNulty lost “quantifiably” everything. To herald it as a “milestone” in her client advocacy is absolutely outrageous. Allow me to give you the facts and the details. The facts and the details that the “Juris Aristocracy”, their curated press releases, their paid lackeys and cohorts never will render.

Frost v. PCRMC: Case Header | CaseNet Mo.

Case.net: SD37969 - Case Header

The trial court case and associated pleading and motion filings are not available on CaseNet Mo at the time of this investigation but we can ascertain the facts in question from the appellate filings. However, rather than get bogged down in legal minutia I will focus on what is relevant to my criticism.

At the trial court level the Plaintiff brought a complaint against the Defendant, a medical practice case for opioid addiction and the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result. The case was taken to a jury trial and the jury rendered their verdict as follows.

1. That the Defendant(s) did depart from the standard of care and as a result the Plaintiff realized injuries.
2. The jury awarded the Plaintiff $200,000 in compensatory damages.
3. The jury ascribed 90 percent comparative fault to the Plaintiff therefore reducing the net award to the Plaintiff in the amount of $20,000. (suggesting poor client representation.)
4. The jury went on to assess a punitive damages amount against the Defendant(s) in the amount of $500,000. The entire value of the case resided in the punitive damages award. (Juries are rarely aware that the punitive damages award goes to the plaintiff. In consideration of the 90 percent comparative fault it would have been unlikely for a jury to award the punitive damages amount had they known that the plaintiff would have been the recipient, beneficiary.)

At the conclusion of trial and after post trial motions for relief from the verdict the Defendants filed an appeal presenting evidence and arguments in support thereof. In response, Elizabeth C. McNulty, (Mo, Bar # 72026) crafted her answers in response in an attempt to preserve the trial court's ruling. This was, per the reporting of Missouri Lawyers Media McNulty's “first appearance” as lead counsel in an appellate court.  

Side note: Anthony R. Friedman (Mo. Bar 65531) was the original lead counsel at trial and proceeded with representation of the Plaintiff, now Respondent on appeal in this case until Friedman made his withdrawal of representation on June 30, 2023. It was on July 5, 2023 that Elizabeth McNulty (Mo. Bar 72026) made her appearance on behalf of the Respondent.

For the sake of brevity and to get to the crux of my criticism (whereas for case details you can resource the Casenet files) The appellate was a disaster and a complete failure by Elizabeth C. McNulty and the Simon Law Firm P.C. to preserve the case value and any substantial compensation that their Plaintiff client would realize. The result was that…

1. The appeals court upheld the departure from the standard of care.
2. The appeals court upheld the compensatory damages award of $200.000 with a 90 percent comparative fault ascribed to the Plaintiff and as a result realizing a net $20,000 (this is before litigation expenses, attorneys fees, etc. are assessed.)
3. The appeals court overturned the punitive damages award. The case is worthless.

This result is what is presented as a milestone for an “up and coming” , “rising star” , “one to watch” , “a top attorney recognized by Best Lawyers” , “one of the top rated personal injury attorneys per Super Lawyers” of an associate of the Simon Law Firm P.C. Specifically, Elizabeth C. McNulty. 

But wait, there’s more….

It was co-occurring, at the same time that the case of Frost v. PCRMC transitioned from Anthony R. Friedman acting as lead counsel to Elizabeth C. McNulty acting as successor counsel that a transition in representation from Friedman to McNulty occurred in the matter of Pepper v. Gelfand M.D. as well. Pepper v. Gelfand case number #19SL-CC04680 was being tried in the 21st. Judicial Circuit of St. Louis County. This case was also alluded to in the Missouri Lawyers Media report as a premise for the accolades bestowed upon McNulty that may be described as a “disaster” and “worthless”. Not that the case of Pepper v. Gelfand did not have merit and substantial value but rather, that the case was rendered worthless as a result of the incompetent and negligent representation of both lead counsel Anthony R. Friedman and successor counsel Elizabeth C. McNulty. 

Both cases, after years of litigation resulted in a “net-zero” award for the client even though, and ironically antithetical in consideration of the fact that the jury found fault and rendered a verdict against the defendants with regard to the departure from the standard of care.

 From a plaintiff, plaintiff counsel perspective whether a case is won or lost is not a matter of obtaining a verdict. It is a matter of a quantifiable financial award to the injured party to make the party whole. 

Civil torts are a business transaction and the balance sheet is what matters. The verdict in these matters itself is nothing but a symbolic laurel wreath worn by a Triumvirate that never earned the Purple. Such are the litigators whose craft is the art of beguiling the Triers of Fact, akin to Simon Magus. However, upon careful examination by the Appeals court and in consideration of the rule of law, their attempts at sophistry and the machinations of a “Juris-Bamboozler” perpetrated upon the learned is perhaps, more obnoxious to the judicial palate than the spoiled wares of a fishmonger. Yea rather, a pinch of putrid snuff found to be vile to the olfactory. 

Ladies and gentlemen I must admit, that I never cease to amuse myself with my bombastic, linguistic hyperbole. Perhaps it is a personality trait, disorder, idk? But I hope that you may find some amusement as well. 😆

In conclusion, the argument that I present for your consideration is that the public facing persona, curated press releases and gratuitous praise of the “Juris Aristocracy” echo chamber is a pathological self ingratiating illusion that does not reflect nor present the counter narrative for the general public, the consumer who is doing their due diligence in trying to vet the qualifications of counsel for representation which is obscured by the certificates and diplomas framed and hanging upon the wall of their office.

Yet further, in the matter of Pepper V. Gelfand, The Simon Law Firm P.C. advertised for almost two years that the case was a satisfactory win and realization of justice for the plaintiff. However, the case Pepper v. Gelfand is the cause of the O.C.D.C. complaint(s) and forthcoming legal malpractice complaint naming The Simon Law Firm P.C. et al. as defendants. Upon the threat of reporting the misleading advertising to the Missouri State Attorney General's office citing a violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act specifically: RSMo 407.020,  The Simon Law Firm has removed the misleading advertisement and the link now presents as a 404 - page not found. Below is the broken link and the details of the controversy on Shout It Out Loud org. 

https://simonlawpc.com/results/medical-malpractice-in-st-louis-county/

https://shoutitoutloud.org/misleading-advertising 

You may read extensively about the conduct, misconduct and modality of representation conducted by Elizabeth C. McNulty in the matter of Pepper v. Gelfand M.D. at the site below that is hosted by Albert B. Pepper Jr. who was McNulty's plaintiff client acting as lead counsel after the withdrawal of Anthony R. Friedman and of a forthcoming complaint to be filed with the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Missouri naming Elizabeth C. McNulty, Mo. Bar # 72026 as Respondent.

https://shoutitoutloud.org/ 

You may read extensively about the conduct, misconduct and modality of representation conducted by Anthony R. Friedman in the matter of Pepper v. Gelfand M.D. at the site below that is hosted by Albert B. Pepper Jr. who was Friedman's plaintiff client acting as lead counsel prior to his withdrawal of representation on June 30, 2023 of which a complaint has been filed and delivered on December 22, 2025  to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Missouri naming Anthony R. Friedman, Mo. Bar # 65531 as Respondent. 

https://notthefriedmanlawfirmsaintcharles.com/

Additional complaints, court motions and opinions can be viewed and downloaded in pdf format available at the following Academia Edu website hosted by Albert B. Pepper Jr. 

https://independent.academia.edu/jonesbing

One more artifact for your consideration. With regard to the illusion of “pay for play” and gratuitous lawyer to lawyer promotion. - Google key word search results (s.e.r.p.) for Elizabeth C. McNulty presents on the first page with a result from the St. Louis Business Journal and the snippet itself creates an “unjustified expectation” of competence. However, The St. Louis Business Journal has the journalistic integrity to feature on the page that it is a “paid advertisement.” A paid advertisement. - Herein is the link: 

https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/potmsearch/detail/submission/6556690/Elizabeth_McNulty

Opinion / Editorial Jan. 26, 2026

Albert B. Pepper Jr. - litigant pro se

Consumer advocate - citizen journalist

Phoenix Rising Productions LLC 

Post Script: The date of this publication Jan. 26, 2026 is the two year anniversary of the rendering of the jury verdict in Pepper v. Gelfand wherein Elizabeth C. McNulty and the Simon Law Firm P.C. realized a "net zero" award for their plaintiff client: Albert B. Pepper Jr.  - Happy Anniversary Simon Law Firm P.C. et al.

"The choice of an attorney is an important one and should not be based solely on advertisements." - as per Mo. Rule: 4-7.2(f)