Missouri AG to face questioning over meeting with Jackson County legislator, judge rules
A Missouri judge has ruled that Attorney General Andrew Bailey can be questioned about a meeting he had with a Jackson County legislator during Bailey’s litigation against the county related to increased property assessments.
Associate Circuit Judge Karen Krauser ruled on Wednesday that attorneys for the defendants, which include Jackson County, can depose Bailey about his communications with the legislator, Sean Smith. Krauser also found that Travis Woods, an attorney in Bailey’s office, violated court rules by holding a separate virtual meeting with Smith.
“The Missouri Attorney General’s Office is not exempt from the requirements of the state ethical rules, and this Court finds that Travis Woods, Plaintiff’s counsel, violated the Rules of Professional Conduct,” Krauser, from Clay County, wrote in the order.
The Missouri Supreme Court assigned Krauser to oversee the case after all judges from Jackson County were recused.
The order centers on two separate meetings that occurred after Bailey sued Jackson County, alleging the county illegally increased homeowners’ property assessments.
One was an in-person meeting between Bailey, a Republican, and Smith, a Republican who is running for Congress, on April 27. The other was a virtual meeting between Woods and Smith after Smith was deposed in the lawsuit against Jackson County.
A spokesperson for Bailey did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.
Smith, in a phone call with a reporter, said he was unable to comment on the order.
“I’m under, effectively, a gag order because I’m a witness in the trial and I’m presently under oath, so I’m not supposed to comment,” he said.
Krauser’s order is in favor of Jackson County, which argued that Woods’ meeting with Smith violated a Missouri Supreme Court rule. The rule states that, while representing a client, a lawyer cannot communicate about that representation with another person represented by a lawyer in the case.
The court found that the meeting with Smith was an ex parte communication because Smith “regularly consults with the County’s lawyers regarding issues that are central to Plaintiffs’ lawsuit, has the authority to obligate the County with respect to those matters by way of resolutions and ordinances, and whose acts or omissions in connection with those matters may be imputed to the County for purposes of this lawsuit.”
During a hearing in the case on Monday, Krauser ordered Bailey’s office to provide to the court notes from the virtual meeting between Woods and Smith. She also ruled that Jackson County could depose Bailey about his meeting with Smith.
According to the order, Bailey’s office later provided the court with notes taken during the virtual meeting. The court found that no attorney/client privileged information was contained in the notes and had the notes deleted.
The order goes on to state that a member of Bailey’s staff was deposed about the office’s meeting with Smith.
During that deposition, the staff member testified that Bailey’s lawsuit against Jackson County was mentioned during that meeting and “there was a discussion of preparing a joint statement regarding this lawsuit.”
Krauser ruled that Jackson County could depose Bailey about conversations he had with Smith that relate to the lawsuit after the case was filed.
She also ordered that Bailey “shall address the nature of the contacts, who was present for the contacts, and what was discussed during the contacts.”
The ruling comes as Bailey is seeking a full term and embroiled in a hotly-contested Republican primary against Will Scharf, a former federal prosecutor. Scharf was quick to criticize Bailey on Wednesday, saying that Bailey was “putting politics before his duties as attorney general.”
“It is absolutely outrageous that this important litigation against Jackson County is now imperiled because Andrew Bailey wanted a quick hit for his campaign,” he said.
Bailey’s lawsuit against Jackson County came after county homeowners expressed outrage after assessments jumped significantly last year. Residential property values increased by roughly 40% overall since the last assessment in 2021, according to county data.
The lawsuit is set for a bench trial on Aug. 9.
This story was originally published July 10, 2024 at 4:22 PM.
