Attorneys Mark McCloskey and his wife Patricia have appealed the Missouri Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel's probated suspension of their law licenses to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Their 13-page brief, which was written and filed by St. Louis attorney Mike Downey on May 9, asks whether the constitution allows an attorney to be sanctioned for professional misconduct based upon a finding of moral turpitude when the attorneys were exercising their Second Amendment rights to bear arms in self-defense.
“If lawyers are prohibited from exercising their constitutional rights, that turns the law upside down,” Mark McCloskey said. “The Supreme Court of Missouri and the Bar Association of Missouri ought to be champions of our constitutional rights, not inquisitors that punish you for doing what you have a constitutional right and moral obligation to do and that is to defend yourself, your family, and your property.”
The McCloskeys gained national attention two years ago in the wake of the 2020 George Floyd protests for brandishing an assault rifle and a semi-automatic pistol in front of their St. Louis home while demonstrators marched towards former Mayor Lyda Krewson’s nearby home.
They were arrested and charged with misdemeanors, defined as crimes of moral turpitude. On Feb. 8, the Missouri Supreme Court issued an order indefinitely suspending the couple’s law permits.
“By having pled guilty even when faced with a pardon from the governor, that is a crime of moral turpitude and they don't explain why it is, and there's no precedent for it being such,” McCloskey told the St. Louis Record.
The McCloskeys are asking the Supreme Court to vacate the discipline and to review the discipline against them on the basis that conduct protected by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments cannot and should not constitute conduct involving moral turpitude when that same conduct received praise from former President Donald Trump and a pardon from Gov. Mike Parson.
“It's hard to imagine that an activity which causes the President of the United States, 14 sitting congressmen, the governor of the state of Missouri, and the attorney general of the state of Missouri to say it wasn't a bad thing, but that it was a laudable thing that we did and then to have the Bar Association and the Missouri Supreme Court say that not only is it not a laudable thing, but a crime of moral turpitude, is absurd in my humble opinion,” McCloskey said.
Edward Robertson Jr. of the Bartimus Frickleton Robertson Rader law firm in Kansas City waived the Missouri Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel's right to file a reply brief unless the Supreme Court requests one. The high court is scheduled to review the appeal brief in conference on June 2.
"I hope they take the case and I hope they rule in our favor but you never know," McCloskey added. "The U.S. Supreme Court gets a lot of requests to review a lot of issues and they are very selective in what they take and what they consider. We'll keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best."