U.S. Supreme Court won't address gun-waving lawyer-couple's probation

(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday left in place an attorney misconduct penalty against husband-and-wife personal injury lawyers in St. Louis who brandished firearms at racial justice protesters in 2020 and later pleaded guilty to misdemeanor crimes.

The justices in an unsigned order declined to take up a challenge from the couple, Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who were contesting a year-long probation that involves monitoring and other court-ordered activities imposed on them in February by the Missouri Supreme Court.

The state high court found the McCloskeys' crimes involved "moral turpitude," a legal industry term describing an act of "baseness, vileness, or depravity."

Mark McCloskey pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor assault charge, and his wife pleaded guilty to a harassment crime. A grand jury had originally indicted the couple on charges including unlawful use of a weapon.

The McCloskeys, through their lawyer Michael Downey, argued in the U.S. Supreme Court that lawfully brandishing firearms could not constitute conduct involving "moral turpitude." Their petition argued that the court "has recognized that Americans have a long-standing and well-recognized right to protect themselves and their home."

Downey and the McCloskeys on Monday did not immediately return messages seeking comment.

Images and videos of the June 28, 2020, incident involving the McCloskeys showed them holding firearms and shouting at protesters to stay off their property. The protests came in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd, an unarmed Black man, by former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin.

Then-President Donald Trump and other prominent Republicans had criticized the prosecution of the McCloskeys. Republican Missouri Governor Mike Parson pardoned the McCloskeys in August 2021.

Alan Pratzel, chief disciplinary counsel for Missouri, on Monday declined to comment.

Mark McCloskey, Pratzel told the Missouri Supreme Court, "waived any defenses he may have felt applicable to his circumstances" when he pleaded guilty. "In other words, by pleading guilty, he admitted that he was not lawfully defending himself, other people, or his property," Pratzel said in a filing.

He added: Mark McCloskey's "criminal conduct reflects adversely on his fitness as a lawyer."

The case is Mark and Patricia McCloskey v. Missouri Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 21-1440.

For the McCloskeys: Michael Downey of Downey Law Group

For disciplinary counsel: Edward Robertson Jr of Bartimus Frickleton Robertson Rader

Read more:

Gun-brandishing lawyer-couple asks Supreme Court to nix sanctions

Missouri governor pardons couple who brandished guns at protesters

St. Louis couple who brandished guns at protesters plead guilty

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.