On Tuesday, January 31, 2023, the Supreme Court of Missouri suspended attorney Philip E. Prewitt for abuse of the prestige of the Judicial Office to advance personal interests.
The case is entitled “In the matter of Philip E. Prewitt” and was brought by the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel with case no. SC99627.
The charges cited Missouri Court Rules 2-1.2, 2-1.3, 4-1.9(c), 4-8.4(a), and 4-8.4(d) which state:
A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
A judge shall not abuse the prestige of the judicial office to advance the personal or economic interests of the judge or others or allow others to do so.
A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter: (1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client or when the information has become generally known, or (2) reveal information relating to the representation except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client.
it is professional misconduct to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
The Missouri Court Rules can be found here.
The charges cited arose from the respondent’s conduct during his unsuccessful campaign to retain his position as an Associate Circuit Judge of Macon County against a challenger (Burks) in the last 2018 election. Prewitt rejected the suspension recommended by the Discipline Hearing Panel. He maintained that didn’t engage in any misconduct. The stated misconduct originated from four counts: 1) engaging in a text message exchange with a candidate for circuit clerk that threatened Prewitt’s involvement in the circuit clerk’s campaign if she did not remove his opponent’s signs from her yard; 2) maintaining a Facebook account identifying Prewitt as an associate four circuit judge through which he made 11 postings encouraging others to attend certain charitable events or make donations to certain charities; (3) criticizing other judges in a Facebook; and 4) questioning a prosecutor during an arraignment about the strength of a case, advising that he did not want to unnecessarily prevent the defendant from playing football and that the prosecutor should dispose of the case.
The filing states:
“In mid – January 2018, Burks was in her private law office with Meisner. Meisner told Burks of a conversation he had with James Talt Holman. According to Meisner, Prewitt told [Holman] that if [Holman] was going to be talking to anyone that would talk to [ Burks] to let them know to let her know that, you know, things were going to come out in this next election that maybe hadn’t before and that the election was going to be a blood bath.”
The filing continues:
“At the disciplinary hearing, Burks expressed her concern that Prewitt would publicly label her husband a “predator.” Burks provided her understanding of “predator”: “someone who seeks out the prey, who looks for innocent people and takes advantage of them sexually or financially.” Her husband’s affairs were consensual with adult women over whom he held no power. Prewitt agreed “predator” could be taken to mean sexual predator, but he defined the word as “[s]omebody who hunts somebody else.” One of Prewitt’s witnesses commented that her observation of the husband’s conduct was not predatory but flirtatious.”
The filing further states:
“Burks entered the 2018 election as an Independent candidate. She won the election and took office in January 2019. Prewitt did not follow through on publishing advertisements detailing the affairs of Burks’ husband or publicly stating Burks was supporting a predator. Prewitt could not unequivocally say he did not ever bring up the topic of Burks’ husband’s infidelity himself. He testified, “It was very surprising to a vast number of people given that she would be putting herself in the public eye.” He admitted one of the reasons he did not disseminate campaign information discussing the affairs was due to the complaint pending with the Judicial Commission.”
In dichotomizing the issues at hand and analyzing the factual findings of the case, the court determined that the respondent indeed violated the above-mentioned rules and should be subjected to an indefinite suspension.
The Disposition states:
“For the foregoing reasons, this Court orders Prewitt be suspended indefinitely with no leave to apply for reinstatement for two years.”
Mr. Prewitt is a former Judge, Former AHC Commissioner, and Former U.S. Army Officer. His bio can be found on Linkedin. He attended Washington University in St. Louis School of Law, graduating in 1992. He practices in Jefferson City, Missouri.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
