Attorney General Andrew Bailey speaks at a press conference in the Missouri House Lounge, flanked by House Speaker Dean Plocher, left, and state Rep. Justin Sparks (Tim Bommel/Missouri House Communications).
The Missouri Supreme Court declined to force an investigation into donations to Attorney General Andrew Bailey connected to a witness in a case his office was handling.
In a filing Tuesday evening, the judges denied a request from Lucas Cierpiot — son of state Sen. Mike Cierpiot — to require the disciplinary arm of the court to investigate donations from Micheal Ketchmark and his law firm to a political action committee supporting Bailey.
Ketchmark, a prominent attorney and large political donor, was called as a witness in a disability discrimination case filed by Lucas Cierpiot’s brother, Patrick, against the Missouri Department of Economic Development. Bailey’s office was defending the state.
After Ketchmark’s law firm donated to the pro-Bailey Liberty and Justice PAC, Lucas Cierpiot filed a complaint with the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, accusing Bailey of using his position as attorney general for personal political gain.
“No attorney can ever collect money from a case witness,” Cierpiot’s filing says. “The fact that there is not a rule spelling this out in-letter is due to the fact that it is so obvious.”
GOP legislator’s son asks Supreme Court to order inquiry into donations to Missouri AG
Cierpiot’s complaint was dismissed in March. He asked for further review, but it was dismissed again in May. He then sought an order from the state Supreme Court to force an investigation.
Neither Bailey’s office nor Cierpiot immediately returned requests for comment.
Cierpiot’s was one of several accusations of unethical behavior by Bailey, who took office last year after being appointed by Gov. Mike Parson. Bailey is now running for a full term.
This summer, he narrowly avoided being questioned under oath about his contact with a defendant in his own case against Jackson County. One of Bailey’s deputies lost his license because of the meetings, according to a filing from the county’s attorneys.
Last year, Bailey withdrew from defending the Missouri State Highway Patrol in a lawsuit filed by Warrenton Oil and Torch Electronics regarding video game machines that offer cash prizes. The attorney general’s office bowed out of the case following donations from PACs connected to the companies’ lobbyist. The patrol investigated the machines, believing that they were illegal means of gambling.
Bailey was also the focus of a formal complaint about the behavior of his office after he falsely blamed the Hazelwood School District’s diversity, equity and inclusion program for the off-campus assault of a student.
Patrick Cierpiot named Ketchmark as a witness in the underlying lawsuit in May 2022, saying he had urged a Parson staffer not to fire Cierpiot, who was recovering from a bicycle wreck and struggling to keep up with his workload.
The following January, Ketchmark donated $2,825, the maximum that an individual can give, to Bailey’s campaign. Bailey received a combined $16,950 from individuals with the last name Ketchmark or employed by the law firm Ketchmark & McCreight P.C. by the end of the month.
Later in the spring of 2023, Ketchmark’s firm donated $125,000 to the pro-Bailey Liberty and Justice PAC. The firm then gave an in-kind donation of $9,216.53.
In August 2023, Bailey’s office withdrew from defending the Department of Economic Development and allowed the agency to hire a private law firm to handle the case. At the time, Bailey’s spokeswoman, Madeline Sieren, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the office was looking to outside firms to handle “complex litigation.” She said Bailey didn’t have a conflict of interest in the case.
In rejecting Lucas Cierpiot’s ethics complaint, the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel said he failed to allege any violation of the rules of professional conduct. The complaint only outlined the donations from Ketchmark’s law firm to the pro-Bailey PAC, not the donation from Ketchmark to Bailey’s campaign committee. The ethics office drew a distinction between those.
“Corporations are legal entities separate and distinct from their officers and shareholders,” the office said in a court filing responding to Cierpiot’s petition to the Missouri Supreme Court.
The Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel said that before declining to investigate, officials verified that Ketchmark hadn’t contributed to Bailey’s campaign committee, apparently missing the January 2023 donations.
The Supreme Court’s order did not say why it was denying Cierpiot’s request.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.