Missouri AG behind pro-Trump lawsuit at Supreme Court must answer questions under oath in local case as ethics concerns swirl

Missouri AG Andrew Bailey speaks about Supreme Court lawsuit on July 25, 2024 (Fox News).

Missouri’s attorney general, the official who is currently attempting to stop Donald Trump’s hush-money sentencing through a U.S. Supreme Court lawsuit against New York and who opposed the release of two wrongfully convicted people from state prison this summer, still has to answer questions under oath about other conduct that may have violated legal ethics rules, a judge ruled Friday.

In December, AG Andrew Bailey (R) sued Jackson County, its legislature, County Executive Frank White Jr., director of assessment Gail McCann Beatty, the Jackson County Board of Equalization, and a software company hired by the county over the property assessment process. Bailey accused the defendants of breaking the law for 2023 property assessments that led to large tax increases for 90 percent of residential properties in the area.

Ethics concerns arose after a judge said Bailey and Assistant Attorney General Travis Woods discussed the pending case with Jackson County Legislator Sean Smith (R) last spring without informing attorneys for the county. Under Missouri Supreme Court rules as well as ethics rules in many other jurisdictions, lawyers are not permitted to communicate about pending lawsuits with individuals represented by counsel unless specific permission has been obtained.

Smith, currently running for the U.S. House of Representatives, posted about the meeting on his social media pages, saying, “Our campaign team meeting had a quick visit from Missouri Atrorney [sic] General Andrew Bailey today.”

“Thankful for the efforts of the AG in holding those responsible for our Property Tax debacle accountable,” Smith added.

Last month, lawyers for Jackson County filed a motion for sanctions against Bailey over the problematic meetings.

Clay County Circuit Judge Karen Krauser said in response on July 10 that Woods violated the rules of professional conduct and noted, “The Missouri Attorney General’s Office is not exempt from the requirements of the state ethical rules.” Krauser also said that as an elected official, Smith has the power to impact the litigation and noted, “ This court has the authority to impose sanctions for conduct which abuses the judicial process, which includes violations of professional conduct.”

Lawyers for Bailey urged Krauser on Thursday to reconsider her order that the sitting attorney general be questioned under oath. Jason Lewis, general counsel for the attorney general’s office, argued that Bailey has a “profound institutional interest” in ensuring that sitting officials cannot be ordered to give depositions in every case.

Ultimately, Krauser was unconvinced and refused to reverse her order, the docket reviewed by Law&Crime shows.

According to the Missouri Independent , the AG’s office is evaluating how to respond.

Bailey has increasingly come under scrutiny in recent weeks for his role in halting the release of exonerated inmates Christopher Dunn and Sandra Hemme . Both Dunn and Hemme were found by courts to have been wrongfully convicted, but Bailey opposed their releases while he appeals findings of actual innocence in their cases.

On another front, New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) recently denounced Bailey for “seriously undermin[ing] the integrity of the courts” after the Missouri AG filed a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint against the Empire State, a state v. state lawsuit that urged the Supreme Court justices to delay Trump’s sentencing for 34 felony falsification of business records convictions at least until after the 2024 presidential election.

The post Missouri AG behind pro-Trump lawsuit at Supreme Court must answer questions under oath in local case as ethics concerns swirl first appeared on Law & Crime .