Judge Considers Missouri AG Deposition Request

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s office urged a judge not to require him to sit for a deposition in his lawsuit against Jackson County over its property assessment process.

Why it matters: Requiring Bailey to sit for a deposition could set a troubling precedent given the Attorney General’s Office’s caseload.

The details:

• Bailey’s office argues that county attorneys want information that “has nothing to do with the case.”
• Jackson County attorneys filed a motion for sanctions because of Bailey and a deputy’s conversations with Jackson County Legislator Sean Smith, which appear to have violated the rules of professional conduct.
• Bailey argues the meetings were inconsequential and that the county has to exhaust other options before questioning a sitting attorney general.
• The dispute stems from Bailey’s lawsuit against Jackson County, claiming the county’s assessment process was flawed, resulting in an average 30% increase in value across hundreds of thousands of properties.

“The Attorney General’s Office has profound institutional interest that a sitting statewide official cannot be deposed in every case,” said Jason Lewis, general counsel for the Attorney General’s Office.

“If it was an innocent statement, then why can’t (he) just sit down and tell us about it?” said Ryan Taylor, an attorney for Jackson County.

What’s next: The judge said she would issue a written decision Friday on whether to overturn the order granting the deposition.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s office has filed two significant motions in the ongoing Jackson County property assessment case.

The details:

• Bailey’s first motion seeks to immediately vacate a court order that requires him to sit for a deposition, arguing that it contradicts existing law and infringes on his First Amendment rights.
• The second motion aims to disqualify the counsel representing the Jackson County defendants, claiming a conflict of interest as the same lawyers represent members of the Jackson County legislature who argue that the tax assessments were unlawful.
• Earlier this week, Jackson County legislator Sean Smith filed a motion requesting the court to reconsider restrictions placed upon him from discussing the case with Attorney General Bailey and his staff.

“The Jackson County tax assessment case is one of the most important pieces of litigation to reach a Missouri courtroom in decades,” Bailey said in a statement. “Jackson County officials continue to mislead regarding the facts and the law because they know they violated residents’ legal rights. I will not be silenced. This case is too important for too many Missourians. I am moving forward undeterred in the fight to obtain justice for all Jackson County residents who were unlawfully taxed.”

The background: The Jackson County property assessments have been a controversial topic for over a year, drawing significant public and legal scrutiny.

Full story

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s office urged a judge on Thursday not to require him to sit for a deposition in his lawsuit against Jackson County. Bailey’s office argued that county attorneys want information that “has nothing to do with the case.”

Jason Lewis, general counsel for the Attorney General’s Office, urged Clay County Circuit Judge Karen Krauser to reconsider her decision to allow Bailey to be questioned under oath about his conversation with a Jackson County official. Bailey is suing the county over its property assessment process.

Lewis said that requiring Bailey to sit for a deposition could set a troubling precedent, given the Attorney General’s Office’s caseload. “The Attorney General’s Office has profound institutional interest that a sitting statewide official cannot be deposed in every case,” Lewis said. Jackson County attorneys filed a motion for sanctions because of Bailey and a deputy’s conversations with Jackson County Legislator Sean Smith.

The conversations appear to have violated the rules of professional conduct set out by the Missouri Supreme Court. Under those rules, lawyers are not allowed to communicate with an opposing party in a lawsuit without the consent of that person’s lawyer. While Bailey doesn’t dispute the meetings occurred, he argues they were inconsequential.

He also argues that the county has to exhaust other options for seeking information about the meetings before questioning a sitting attorney general. An outside attorney hired by Smith asked Krauser to overturn the order. The attorney likened Jackson County attorneys’ efforts to question Bailey over the meeting to an “atomic bomb” compared with less drastic ways to handle the issue.

“This whole thing really appears to be a distraction from the merits of the case,” said the attorney, Brandon Boulware. But Ryan Taylor, an attorney for Jackson County, argued the state had not been forthcoming on the issue. He quoted President Harry Truman, who “once said, ‘The buck stops here.'”

“What he meant by that was that anything that happens with his administration, he’s responsible for it,” Taylor said.

Judge reconsiders Bailey deposition request

He asked Krauser to stand by her order and allow the deposition to take place. “If it was an innocent statement, then why can’t (he) just sit down and tell us about it?” Taylor said.

The dispute stems from Bailey’s lawsuit against Jackson County over its property assessment process. Bailey claims the county’s process was flawed, resulting in an average 30% increase in value across hundreds of thousands of properties. Attorneys have argued Bailey waited too long to file the case since tax bills have already been paid and money distributed.

Bailey’s office has maintained that the attorney general did nothing wrong in meeting with Smith. They described it as a “brief, casual meeting between two elected officials and their campaign staffs unrelated to the lawsuit.” A filing from Bailey’s office says “at most, a passing remark was made about the lawsuit.”

Lewis said the county should question other individuals present for the meeting before being granted access to Bailey. This is because of a rule against depositions of top-level agency staff.

But time is short with the trial expected to wrap up in early August. “This is about the actions of the attorney general himself, people he was in a room with, people he talked to and what he heard,” Krauser said during Thursday’s hearing. Attorneys also argued over whether Jackson County’s counsel represents Smith as an individual or only the Jackson County Legislature as a body.

Krauser said she believed Smith to be represented by the county’s attorneys. Forcing a sitting attorney general to answer questions under oath is highly unusual. But Krauser said in her order that “the Missouri Attorney General’s Office is not exempt from the requirements of the state ethical rules.”

Krauser did not say during the hearing how she would rule on the request to overturn the order granting the deposition.

She said she would issue a written decision Friday.