The Simon Law Firm P.C. Personal Injury Results: Fact-Checking the $48.1M Anyan Verdict
The Simon Law Firm P.C. Personal Injury Results: Fact-Checking the $48.1M Anyan Verdict
The Issue
Law Firm Advertising of Multi-Million Dollar Jury verdicts to lure new clients when the reality is that the client often realizes a fraction of that amount | The Simon Law Firm P.C. and Anyan v. Mercy Hospital a case study.
The $48.1 Million "Lottery Ticket" Illusion For many St. Louis families, a record-breaking jury award looks like a lottery ticket—a guarantee of total financial justice. In March 2025, The Simon Law Firm P.C. and Gunn | Slater announced a historic $48.1 million verdict in the birth injury case Anyan v. Mercy Hospital (#21SL-CC03944).
R. Anyan (minor) v. Mercy Hospital et al.
This massive number has been used extensively in personal injury marketing to attract new clients across Missouri. However, the public is rarely told the most important fact: The jury's $48 million decision was not the final payout. In fact, it is still being litigated in the Missouri Court of Appeals (Case #ED114232).
Eastern District - Missouri Court of Appeals
But herein is "the smoking gun" That the 48.1 million dollar Jury verdict award was never to be realized yet, The Simon Law Firm P.C. and Gunn | Slater Law Firm continues to advertise "the verdict".
While the jury was in deliberations at the trial court level after an eleven day trial plaintiff counsel and defense counsel negotiated what is know as a "high / low agreement". This agreement specified that of the jury came back with less than an award of 8 million dollars he defense would guarantee and pay 8 million dollars. However, if the jury returned an award over 18 million dollars the defense did not have to pay anything above the 18 million dollars. The 18 million was the cap, the ceiling.
Herein is the evidence:
Plaintiffs Motion to Enforce Settlement
When a firm advertises a $48.1M "win" while knowing the actual check is capped at $18M, they are creating an "unjustified expectation" of results. This $30 million gap represents a significant transparency issue for anyone searching for a personal injury lawyer in St. Louis.
Furthermore, even the 18 million dollar cap is in jeopardy of being greatly reduced because of statutory caps (limits) on compensatory damages. Plaintiffs attorneys know this and are fighting aggressively just to hold onto the 18 million dollar cap.
Therefore, why is Simon Law Firm P.C. and Gunn | Slater Law Firm doing press releases throughout every media source "advertising" the 48.1 million dollar jury verdict "award"? (Notice the variance in the words verdict / award) The answer: Because they can. - In advertising truth and candor are not rigid maxims and personal injury law firms is highly competitive. The firm that can sell to the public the best illusion is the firm that gets the phone call. - We've all seen the commercials. It is a problem that is endemic and systemic.
And media outlet are complicit because it is "click bait" for many. For others it is "pay for play". The Simon Law Firm P.C. in St. Louis is quite adapt at taking advantage of a variety of media outlets in the State of Missouri. Herein is a screenshot I present for your consideration. These screenshots also reflect press release that were featured on television news broadcasts, radio, podcasts, etc. It is what I refer to as the "Big Law Public Relations Industrial Complex".
This prolific and prodigious use of news as advertisement through curated press releases by the law firms presents with two problems that need to be address investigation and rigor to protect the consumer and is in the public interest.
1) Missouri Model Rules of Professional conduct that attorney and lawyers are subject o abide by and in this context: Missouri Rule 4-7.1 that prohibits any communication that is false or misleading. False or misleading can be done by an omission of fact (such as a pre-negotiated high/low agreement) that creates an "unjustified expectation".
2) Such press releases and advertisements can arguably be a violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act: RSMo § 407.020 which prohibits false, misleading, misrepresentation by the suppression, concealment, omission of a material fact. (In the example the 48.1 million dollars was never available in an actual quantifiable amount having the ceiling caped at 18 million by the high / low agreement. - That is a 30.1 million dollar misrepresentation.
Therefore I, Albert B. Pepper Jr. will be filing a complaint with the Missouri States Attorney Generals office citing RSMo § 407.020 and seeking an investigation of the Simon Law Firm P.C. and Gunn | Slater to determine if there is an actionable violation and to impose penalties and remedies as deemed appropriate.
Furthermore, I will be creating a Senate Bill Draft for submission to my state senator the language of which will seek to prohibit the advertisements of jury awards, verdicts prior to the final disposition of the case and claim and or robust disclaimers of what the actual payout to the plaintiff client may be after all claims upon the award are satisfied.
Our Demands:
1) Mandatory Transparency: We call on the Missouri Legislature to require firms to be forthcoming with all pertinent facts that effect the final net award to a plaintiff injured party for the consideration of future clients doing due dilligence.
2) Truth in Results: Stop the practice of using personal injury victims' stories to market "lottery ticket" numbers that don't reflect the actual money paid to the family.
3) Consumer Protection: That the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act be rigorously applied to personal injury law firm advertisements.
Sign this petition to demand that Missouri law firms stop hiding the facts that impact the plaintiff, injured party and consumer and start telling the whole truth about what the actual net recovery amount can be expected and realized.
For further consideration: Proposed Draft of Senate Bill
Missouri Senate Bill Draft: The Legal Advertising Transparency Act
TITLE: An act to amend chapter 407, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the advertisement of legal services, with penalty provisions.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI, AS FOLLOWS:
Section A. Chapter 407, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 407.022, to read as follows:
407.022.
For the purposes of this section, the following terms shall mean:
(1) "Actual Net Recovery", the final amount of money paid to a plaintiff after all statutory caps, high-low agreements, and pre-verdict settlement conditions have been applied;
(2) "High-Low Agreement", any private agreement between parties that sets a minimum and maximum amount of potential recovery regardless of the jury's verdict;
(3) "Nuclear Verdict", any jury award in excess of (subject to senate debate).
No person or law firm shall publish, broadcast, or disseminate any advertisement or press release heralding a jury verdict or award unless such advertisement contains a conspicuous disclosure of:
(1) Any pre-verdict agreement or high-low settlement that caps the actual recovery at an amount lower than the jury’s award;
(2) Any statutory limits on damages that are likely to reduce the advertised verdict at the time of publication.
The disclosure required in subsection 2 of this section shall be printed in a font size no smaller than the largest font used to display the jury award or, in the case of broadcast media, shall be spoken at the same volume and speed as the mention of the jury award.
A violation of this section shall be deemed an unlawful merchandising practice under section 407.020 and shall be subject to all penalties and remedies provided in this chapter.
This section shall not be construed to limit the authority of the Supreme Court of Missouri to regulate the ethical conduct of attorneys under Rule 4-7.1.
Respectfully submitted
/s/ Albert B. Pepper Jr.
Saint Louis, Missouri
For more exhaustive and comprehensive treatment with regard to the details of Anyan v. Mercy Hospital and that of The Simon Law Firm P.C. and of Gunn | Slater law firm you may reference the following web resources.
21
The Issue
Law Firm Advertising of Multi-Million Dollar Jury verdicts to lure new clients when the reality is that the client often realizes a fraction of that amount | The Simon Law Firm P.C. and Anyan v. Mercy Hospital a case study.
The $48.1 Million "Lottery Ticket" Illusion For many St. Louis families, a record-breaking jury award looks like a lottery ticket—a guarantee of total financial justice. In March 2025, The Simon Law Firm P.C. and Gunn | Slater announced a historic $48.1 million verdict in the birth injury case Anyan v. Mercy Hospital (#21SL-CC03944).
R. Anyan (minor) v. Mercy Hospital et al.
This massive number has been used extensively in personal injury marketing to attract new clients across Missouri. However, the public is rarely told the most important fact: The jury's $48 million decision was not the final payout. In fact, it is still being litigated in the Missouri Court of Appeals (Case #ED114232).
Eastern District - Missouri Court of Appeals
But herein is "the smoking gun" That the 48.1 million dollar Jury verdict award was never to be realized yet, The Simon Law Firm P.C. and Gunn | Slater Law Firm continues to advertise "the verdict".
While the jury was in deliberations at the trial court level after an eleven day trial plaintiff counsel and defense counsel negotiated what is know as a "high / low agreement". This agreement specified that of the jury came back with less than an award of 8 million dollars he defense would guarantee and pay 8 million dollars. However, if the jury returned an award over 18 million dollars the defense did not have to pay anything above the 18 million dollars. The 18 million was the cap, the ceiling.
Herein is the evidence:
Plaintiffs Motion to Enforce Settlement
When a firm advertises a $48.1M "win" while knowing the actual check is capped at $18M, they are creating an "unjustified expectation" of results. This $30 million gap represents a significant transparency issue for anyone searching for a personal injury lawyer in St. Louis.
Furthermore, even the 18 million dollar cap is in jeopardy of being greatly reduced because of statutory caps (limits) on compensatory damages. Plaintiffs attorneys know this and are fighting aggressively just to hold onto the 18 million dollar cap.
Therefore, why is Simon Law Firm P.C. and Gunn | Slater Law Firm doing press releases throughout every media source "advertising" the 48.1 million dollar jury verdict "award"? (Notice the variance in the words verdict / award) The answer: Because they can. - In advertising truth and candor are not rigid maxims and personal injury law firms is highly competitive. The firm that can sell to the public the best illusion is the firm that gets the phone call. - We've all seen the commercials. It is a problem that is endemic and systemic.
And media outlet are complicit because it is "click bait" for many. For others it is "pay for play". The Simon Law Firm P.C. in St. Louis is quite adapt at taking advantage of a variety of media outlets in the State of Missouri. Herein is a screenshot I present for your consideration. These screenshots also reflect press release that were featured on television news broadcasts, radio, podcasts, etc. It is what I refer to as the "Big Law Public Relations Industrial Complex".
This prolific and prodigious use of news as advertisement through curated press releases by the law firms presents with two problems that need to be address investigation and rigor to protect the consumer and is in the public interest.
1) Missouri Model Rules of Professional conduct that attorney and lawyers are subject o abide by and in this context: Missouri Rule 4-7.1 that prohibits any communication that is false or misleading. False or misleading can be done by an omission of fact (such as a pre-negotiated high/low agreement) that creates an "unjustified expectation".
2) Such press releases and advertisements can arguably be a violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act: RSMo § 407.020 which prohibits false, misleading, misrepresentation by the suppression, concealment, omission of a material fact. (In the example the 48.1 million dollars was never available in an actual quantifiable amount having the ceiling caped at 18 million by the high / low agreement. - That is a 30.1 million dollar misrepresentation.
Therefore I, Albert B. Pepper Jr. will be filing a complaint with the Missouri States Attorney Generals office citing RSMo § 407.020 and seeking an investigation of the Simon Law Firm P.C. and Gunn | Slater to determine if there is an actionable violation and to impose penalties and remedies as deemed appropriate.
Furthermore, I will be creating a Senate Bill Draft for submission to my state senator the language of which will seek to prohibit the advertisements of jury awards, verdicts prior to the final disposition of the case and claim and or robust disclaimers of what the actual payout to the plaintiff client may be after all claims upon the award are satisfied.
Our Demands:
1) Mandatory Transparency: We call on the Missouri Legislature to require firms to be forthcoming with all pertinent facts that effect the final net award to a plaintiff injured party for the consideration of future clients doing due dilligence.
2) Truth in Results: Stop the practice of using personal injury victims' stories to market "lottery ticket" numbers that don't reflect the actual money paid to the family.
3) Consumer Protection: That the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act be rigorously applied to personal injury law firm advertisements.
Sign this petition to demand that Missouri law firms stop hiding the facts that impact the plaintiff, injured party and consumer and start telling the whole truth about what the actual net recovery amount can be expected and realized.
For further consideration: Proposed Draft of Senate Bill
Missouri Senate Bill Draft: The Legal Advertising Transparency Act
TITLE: An act to amend chapter 407, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the advertisement of legal services, with penalty provisions.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI, AS FOLLOWS:
Section A. Chapter 407, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 407.022, to read as follows:
407.022.
For the purposes of this section, the following terms shall mean:
(1) "Actual Net Recovery", the final amount of money paid to a plaintiff after all statutory caps, high-low agreements, and pre-verdict settlement conditions have been applied;
(2) "High-Low Agreement", any private agreement between parties that sets a minimum and maximum amount of potential recovery regardless of the jury's verdict;
(3) "Nuclear Verdict", any jury award in excess of (subject to senate debate).
No person or law firm shall publish, broadcast, or disseminate any advertisement or press release heralding a jury verdict or award unless such advertisement contains a conspicuous disclosure of:
(1) Any pre-verdict agreement or high-low settlement that caps the actual recovery at an amount lower than the jury’s award;
(2) Any statutory limits on damages that are likely to reduce the advertised verdict at the time of publication.
The disclosure required in subsection 2 of this section shall be printed in a font size no smaller than the largest font used to display the jury award or, in the case of broadcast media, shall be spoken at the same volume and speed as the mention of the jury award.
A violation of this section shall be deemed an unlawful merchandising practice under section 407.020 and shall be subject to all penalties and remedies provided in this chapter.
This section shall not be construed to limit the authority of the Supreme Court of Missouri to regulate the ethical conduct of attorneys under Rule 4-7.1.
Respectfully submitted
/s/ Albert B. Pepper Jr.
Saint Louis, Missouri
For more exhaustive and comprehensive treatment with regard to the details of Anyan v. Mercy Hospital and that of The Simon Law Firm P.C. and of Gunn | Slater law firm you may reference the following web resources.
21
The Decision Makers
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on February 20, 2026