Missouri regulators are asking a St. Louis judge to hit Preservation Board member Anthony Robinson with fines, accusing him of breaking a 2024 settlement in which he admitted practicing architecture without a state license. In new court filings, officials say Robinson kept presenting himself and his companies as providing architectural services that, under Missouri law, only licensed architects are allowed to offer. The move places an appointed preservation watchdog under unusual legal scrutiny while the board continues to weigh projects in historic neighborhoods across the city.
State files enforcement motion
According to the St. Louis Post‑Dispatch, the state’s professional licensing division has asked circuit court to enforce Robinson’s earlier settlement and tack on additional fines after identifying what it says are fresh violations. The filing stems from complaints and a review of business activities that regulators argue amount to the unlicensed practice of architecture.
What the 2024 settlement said
Records from the Missouri Division of Professional Registration show Robinson entered into a settlement effective Aug. 15, 2024. In that agreement, he acknowledged using the title “architect” despite never holding a Missouri license and accepted a $3,000 civil penalty. The board’s record states that Robinson prepared a proposal to renovate a commercial building into mixed‑use space, work regulators said only a licensed architect could lawfully perform.
Robinson's role on the preservation panel
The City of St. Louis lists Anthony Robinson as a current member of the Preservation Board, a mayor‑appointed body that reviews permits and design work in the city’s historic districts. City rules require that at least two board members be registered architects, a detail that has drawn added attention in light of the state’s position that Robinson has represented himself as an architect in the past.
Legal stakes
Missouri law prohibits the unlicensed practice of architecture and authorizes regulators to seek civil penalties and, in some situations, criminal charges (see RSMo 327.101 and RSMo 327.076). Those statutes give licensing boards the power to investigate, levy fines and refer matters for prosecution when they believe it is warranted, so the court’s call in this case could carry consequences that go beyond public optics for the board member.
Next steps
The state’s motion asks the court to enforce the settlement and impose a monetary penalty. The St. Louis Post‑Dispatch reports that a hearing date had not been set at the time of its publication. The court will ultimately decide whether Robinson violated the settlement terms and state law and whether additional sanctions are appropriate.
