The following complaint is part of GC Wire’s Operation Accountability, a series of reports examining allegations of misconduct involving public officials and others entrusted with serving the public. Each complaint will be supported by documentary evidence and submitted to the appropriate Mississippi state agency for review. GC Wire will publish the complaints and report on their progress and any actions taken by the agencies involved.
JACKSON, MS – GC Wire has extensively documented allegations of misconduct involving Intellisafe LLC, and its owners, which include political consultant Josh Gregory and former Ocean Springs City Attorney Robert Wilkinson. Those allegations include the diversion of traffic tickets from the courts, holding faux court hearings in actual courthouse lobbies, having police on their payroll, questionable financial arrangements with state agencies, and serious conflicts of interest.
Our latest investigation raises new questions about judicial impartiality after Sanford R. “Sandy” Steckler was appointed by the Mississippi Supreme Court to preside over litigation involving Intellisafe, Gregory, and Wilkinson, all of which have been or are currently represented by the law firm where Steckler practices.
We are now submitting the following report to have those questions addressed by the Mississippi State Bar. Those questions also include the professional relationship between Gregory and four Mississippi Supreme Court Justices.
GC Wire has also requested that Mississippi State Bar President A. Kelly Sessoms III recuse himself from any involvement in this complaint because he is Wilkinson’s law partner at Wilkinson, Williams, Bosio & Sessoms, PLLC. We believe that relationship presents an obvious concern about impartiality in the disciplinary process.
The complete complaint and supporting evidence are below. Some evidence has been redacted to protect personal information. The report to the state contains unredacted versions.
Respondents:
- Sanford R. “Sandy” Steckler, Attorney and Senior Status Judge
- R. Andrew “Andy” Taggart, Jr., Attorney
- Robert Wayne Wilkinson, Attorney
Re: Judicial Conflict of Interest — Hattiesburg Intellisafe Litigation
I. NATURE OF COMPLAINT
On November 4, 2026, the Mississippi Supreme Court appointed Sanford R. “Sandy” Steckler as Special Chancellor to preside over a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality and legality of a controversial traffic ticketing operation in Hattiesburg, Mississippi.
There is a serious problem with that appointment.
Steckler is an attorney with Taggart Law Group, a law firm that currently or previously represented Intellisafe LLC, and Robert Wilkinson. Both are named defendants in the case Mr. Steckler accepted to preside over.
The firm’s founder and namesake attorney, R. Andrew “Andy” Taggart, Jr., personally defended Intellisafe’s Hattiesburg traffic enforcement and diversion programs in a six-page demand letter dated May 29, 2025. Those same operations are now at the center of the lawsuit assigned to Steckler.
Taggart also represented QJR, LLC, a company owned by Robert Wayne Wilkinson, Josh Gregory, and Quinton Dickerson. In a December 31, 2024, letter, Taggart identified these three individuals and expressly stated that his firm had been retained to represent “them.”
On January 6, 2025, Taggart entered an appearance as counsel of record for QJR in federal court.
Wilkinson is a named defendant in the Hattiesburg lawsuit Steckler was assigned to preside over. Deposition testimony in that case also identifies Wilkinson and Gregory as owners of Intellisafe, another named defendant. Mississippi Secretary of State records also identify Gregory as a registered lobbyist for Intellisafe.
At the time of Taggart’s representation, his firm operated under the name Taggart Rimes Attorneys, PLLC. Both Taggart and Steckler are now listed as attorneys with Taggart Law Group. Historical attorney listings also identify Steckler with the earlier Taggart-Rimes practice.
Steckler accepted an appointment to preside over litigation involving at least two defendants previously represented by his own law firm. Neither Steckler nor Wilkinson, himself a licensed Mississippi attorney and a named defendant, is known to have disclosed this relationship or raised the potential conflict.
The November 4 appointment order contains no disclosure of these relationships.
This complaint requests an investigation into whether Steckler, Wilkinson, or Taggart disclosed these relationships to the court and whether their conduct complied with applicable professional and judicial ethics requirements.
II. THE UNDERLYING LAWSUIT
The underlying case is:
Jacob Stevens and Christopher Puckett v. City of Hattiesburg, Mississippi; Toby Barker; Hardy Sims; Robert Wayne Wilkinson; Alexander Wilkinson; and Intellisafe, LLC
Forrest County Chancery Court
Cause No. 2025-cv-0525-SM
Mississippi Supreme Court Administrative No. 2026-AP-01258
The plaintiffs challenge the legality of Hattiesburg’s traffic enforcement and diversion practices involving Intellisafe.
Robert Wayne Wilkinson and Intellisafe are named defendants.
After the sitting chancellors recused themselves in October 2026, Presiding Justice Leslie D. King appointed Steckler as Special Chancellor on November 4, 2026.
The appointment placed Steckler in a position to rule on matters involving the same company and enforcement practices previously defended by his law colleague.
III. DOCUMENTED ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIPS
A. Taggart represented QJR and its principals
On December 31, 2024, Taggart sent a letter to Ocean Springs Weekly Record editor R. Leigh Coleman on Taggart Rimes Attorneys letterhead.
The letter stated:
“This firm represents QJR, LLC, owned by Josh Gregory, Quinton Dickerson and Robert Wilkinson. We have been brought on as additional counsel to represent them in this matter.”
Taggart also referred to the individuals involved as his firm’s clients.
The letter establishes that Taggart expressly claimed to represent QJR and its principals, including Wilkinson and Gregory, in the matter addressed by his correspondence.
Exhibit A — December 31, 2024, Taggart letter.
B. Taggart entered an appearance in federal court
On January 6, 2025, Taggart filed an Entry of Appearance in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi in:
QJR, LLC v. Securix, LLC and Jonathan Miller
Case No. 1:24-cv-00383-TBM-RPM
Document No. 15
The filing states:
“R. Andrew Taggart, Jr. of TAGGART|RIMES ATTORNEYS, PLLC enters his appearance as counsel of record for Plaintiff QJR, LLC.”
This federal court filing independently establishes Taggart’s formal representation of QJR, whose owners include Wilkinson and Gregory.
Exhibit B — January 6, 2025, Entry of Appearance.
C. Taggart represented Intellisafe and defended the operations at issue
On May 29, 2025, Taggart sent a six-page demand letter expressly identifying Intellisafe as his firm’s client. The letter was written on letterhead bearing the name of TAGGART|RIMES ATTORNEYS, PLLC, a firm of which Steckler was a member.
The letter was not about an unrelated business dispute.
Taggart personally defended Intellisafe’s Hattiesburg traffic enforcement operations, municipal diversion procedures, and the legality and constitutionality of those practices.
Those are substantially the same activities challenged in the litigation assigned to Steckler.
This establishes a direct connection between Taggart’s legal representation and the subject matter of the pending lawsuit.
Exhibit C — May 29, 2025, Taggart demand letter.
D. Wilkinson and Gregory own Intellisafe
Deposition testimony in the Hattiesburg litigation identifies Wilkinson and Gregory as owners of Intellisafe.
Wilkinson is a named defendant. Gregory is not, but his ownership connects Taggart’s representation of QJR and its principals to Intellisafe.
Mississippi Secretary of State records also identify Gregory as a registered lobbyist for Intellisafe.
These relationships demonstrate that Taggart’s representation involved interconnected individuals and businesses directly associated with the disputed traffic enforcement operation.
IV. STECKLER’S PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH TAGGART
Steckler and Taggart are both identified as attorneys with Taggart Law Group, PLLC.
Historical attorney listings also associate Steckler with the earlier Taggart-Rimes practice under which Taggart represented QJR and Intellisafe.
The issue is not merely that the two attorneys know each other professionally.
They are members of the same law practice, while Taggart has documented attorney-client relationships with parties and business interests connected to litigation over which Steckler was appointed to preside.
The extent of their professional and financial relationship, including whether Taggart’s representation of any defendant continued at the time of Steckler’s appointment, warrants investigation.
Exhibit D — Law firm attorney listings and historical records.
V. REPORTED RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INTELLISAFE OWNER AND SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
On August 28, 2025, the Sun Herald and Mississippi Today published a joint investigation concerning litigation involving QJR, LLC, and Securix. The report identified Josh Gregory and Quinton Dickerson as owners of Frontier Strategies, a political consulting firm, and stated:
“Frontier is a consulting firm that has advised numerous elected officials, including four sitting Supreme Court justices.”
Gregory is also an owner of Intellisafe, LLC, a named defendant in the Hattiesburg litigation assigned to Steckler. Gregory, Dickerson, and Wilkinson are also owners of QJR, LLC.
The November 4, 2026, order appointing Steckler, signed by Presiding Justice Leslie D. King, expressly invokes Mississippi Code § 9-1-105, which provides that the Chief Justice may appoint a special judge:
“with the advice and consent of a majority of the justices of the Mississippi Supreme Court”
The appointment order does not identify which justices participated in approving Steckler’s appointment.
Given the reported professional relationships between Frontier Strategies and four sitting Supreme Court justices, and Gregory’s ownership interest in Intellisafe, an additional question arises concerning whether any of those justices participated in the appointment process.
I respectfully request that the Mississippi Bar examine these relationships and determine whether any participating justice had a professional relationship with Gregory or Frontier Strategies that warranted disclosure or consideration under the applicable judicial ethics rules.
Exhibit G — August 28, 2025, joint report by the Sun Herald and Mississippi Today.
VI. PRIOR CONFLICT INVOLVING TAGGART AND WILKINSON
On February 18, 2026, I formally notified the Mississippi Ethics Commission that Commissioner R. Andrew “Andy” Taggart, Jr., had previously represented Robert Wayne Wilkinson and businesses associated with him. I requested that Taggart recuse himself from Ethics Commission Case No. R-25-063, because it involved Wilkinson.
On August 26, 2026, the Commission confirmed in writing that Taggart had “fully recused himself” when the case was considered on August 7, 2026.
Wilkinson is the same defendant in the Hattiesburg litigation subsequently assigned to Taggart’s law colleague, Sanford Steckler.
Exhibit H — Mississippi Ethics Commission recusal correspondence.
VII. JUDICIAL IMPARTIALITY AND PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
Canon 3(E)(1) of the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct requires a judge to disqualify himself in proceedings in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
The documented circumstances raise serious questions under that standard.
Steckler accepted an appointment to preside over litigation involving Intellisafe, whose disputed practices Taggart had personally defended, and Wilkinson, an individual Taggart had expressly identified among his firm’s clients.
The two attorneys are associated with the same law practice.
Wilkinson, as both a named defendant and a licensed attorney, was also positioned to recognize the potential conflict arising from the appointment of an attorney associated with his former counsel.
The Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice under Rule 8.4(d), and knowingly assisting a judge in conduct that violates applicable judicial conduct rules under Rule 8.4(f).
The issue is whether the documented relationships were disclosed and whether the respondents fulfilled their professional obligations concerning judicial impartiality.
The November 4 appointment order contains no reference to these relationships.
Exhibit I — November 4, 2026, Order Appointing Special Chancellor.
VIII. REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
I respectfully request that the Mississippi Bar investigate:
- Whether Steckler disclosed his professional relationship with Taggart and Taggart’s prior representation of Intellisafe, Wilkinson, and their related business interests before accepting the judicial appointment.
- Whether Wilkinson or Taggart disclosed these relationships to the court or otherwise raised the potential conflict.
- Whether any failure to disclose these relationships violated the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct or the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct.
- Whether any Mississippi Supreme Court justice who had a professional relationship with Josh Gregory or Frontier Strategies participated in the selection or approval of Steckler’s appointment, whether those relationships were disclosed, and whether they presented any conflict of interest under the applicable judicial ethics rules.
I further request that the Bar refer any evidence of judicial misconduct to the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance and take whatever disciplinary action the evidence warrants.
IX. CONCLUSION
The evidence establishes that Steckler’s law firm represented Intellisafe and Wilkinson and defended the very Hattiesburg traffic enforcement practices now being challenged in court.
It also establishes that Taggart represented QJR, whose owners include Robert Wilkinson and Josh Gregory, both identified through deposition testimony as owners of Intellisafe.
Wilkinson and Intellisafe are named defendants.
Steckler accepted an appointment to preside over a lawsuit involving two defendants currently or previously represented by the law firm in which he practices. Wilkinson, a named defendant and licensed attorney, also had a direct connection to that representation. Neither is known to have raised the conflict.
The question is whether these relationships were disclosed and whether the respondents complied with their professional obligations.
That question warrants a formal investigation.
