FOLLOW US

INSIDE THIS REPORT

• A Georgia judge has ruled that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis cannot re-enter the collapsed Trump election-interference case to oppose nearly $16.8 million in legal-fee claims.
• The amount now at stake is $16,853,810.28 across 14 former defendants, including President Donald Trump.
• What comes next is a reasonableness fight over fees, with Fulton County still in the case because the court found the county is the likely source of any eventual payment.

[USA HERALD] - A Fulton County judge has delivered another sharp procedural blow to District Attorney Fani Willis, ruling that her office cannot intervene in the escalating fight over nearly $17 million in attorney fees sought by President Donald Trump and other former defendants in the now-defunct Georgia election prosecution.

The ruling, issued by Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, turns on a point that is both technical and devastating. Because Willis’s office was previously disqualified from the prosecution, McAfee held that it cannot now return to defend the charging decisions and litigation conduct that gave rise to the fee dispute in the first place. In the court’s phrasing, the office had been “wholly disqualified,” and its interests were already “adequately represented” by the State through the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia.

That is a significant development, not just because of the money involved, but because it underscores how thoroughly the original prosecution unraveled after Willis’s removal. Trump and 18 others were indicted in August 2023 under Georgia’s racketeering law over alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in the state. The case later collapsed after the Georgia Court of Appeals found an appearance of impropriety tied to Willis’s romantic relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade, and the matter was eventually dismissed after it was transferred away from her office.

Now the battlefield is no longer criminal exposure, but financial exposure.

Under a Georgia law enacted last year, defendants may seek reimbursement of reasonable attorney fees and costs when charges are dismissed after a prosecutor is disqualified for improper conduct. Reuters reported in January that Trump alone sought more than $6.2 million, while the total claims from Trump and other former defendants approached $17 million. AP later reported that the combined demand stands at nearly $17 million, with Skandalakis arguing the statute itself may be constitutionally flawed.

McAfee’s latest order does not decide whether the former defendants will actually recover the full amount requested. What it does do is narrow the field of combat. Willis’s office wanted to participate, arguing that basic due process principles were implicated because money could be drawn from the DA’s budget without the office being heard. But McAfee was not persuaded that the disqualified office had a legal right to intervene after having already been removed from the underlying prosecution.

At the same time, McAfee allowed Fulton County itself to enter the case. That part matters. The court found that because the county provides the overwhelming source of funding for the district attorney’s office, the “financial buck” for any award would likely land at the county’s desk. In plain English, if these fee requests are granted, taxpayers may ultimately feel the hit.

McAfee reportedly wrote that “novelty abounds,” an apt description for a case now operating at the intersection of prosecutorial ethics, statutory fee-shifting, separation-of-powers concerns, and local-government liability. The court must now sort through 14 different fee claims and determine whether the requested amounts are reasonable. That is not a ministerial exercise. It means line-by-line scrutiny, hourly-rate disputes, and a likely fight over what work was necessary, what work was excessive, and whether the governing statute can even withstand constitutional attack.

That looming constitutional issue may become the next major front in this litigation. According to AP, Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council Executive Director Pete Skandalakis has already argued in court filings that the Georgia reimbursement statute has “serious and potentially unconstitutional deficiencies.” His position is that the law may deny county governments due process by exposing them to financial liability without a meaningful chance to contest it as parties in interest. He has also argued there was no explicit judicial finding of “improper conduct” in the strict sense, but rather a finding of an appearance of impropriety.

Those arguments are not trivial. They go directly to whether this new Georgia law can be used as written in one of the highest-profile criminal cases in recent state history. If McAfee ultimately awards substantial fees, the legal and political fallout could stretch well beyond Fulton County. A major fee award could become a warning shot to prosecutors statewide that disqualification can carry not only reputational damage, but enormous budgetary consequences.

There is also a broader institutional lesson here. Prosecutors wield extraordinary power, and courts are often reluctant to intrude on that discretion. But once a court determines that a prosecution was compromised badly enough to require disqualification, the consequences do not always end with dismissal. They can continue into questions of public money, public accountability, and whether defendants who spent millions defending themselves are entitled to be made whole.

Willis’s office moved quickly after the order, seeking a certificate of immediate review and signaling an appeal. Local reporting also said the office requested a stay of proceedings while a higher court considers the matter. That means this fee fight is far from over. But unless an appellate court steps in, McAfee’s order keeps Willis sidelined while the reimbursement claims proceed.

For Trump and the other former defendants, the immediate victory is procedural but meaningful. They no longer have to litigate this reimbursement fight against the very office that was removed from the underlying case. For Fulton County, the ruling means the county may be forced to defend the public purse in a dispute born from a prosecution it did not itself initiate. And for Willis, it is another reminder that disqualification is not a temporary inconvenience. In this case, it may prove to be the legal disability that keeps on giving.

What’s Next

McAfee still must determine whether the requested fees and costs are reasonable, and reporting indicates the court expects to review the 14 fee motions in sequence. Fulton County remains in the case to contest the potential financial impact, while Willis’s office is attempting to obtain immediate appellate review and a stay. That means the next phase will likely center on evidentiary submissions, hourly rates, statutory interpretation, and constitutional due-process arguments.