DA Willis Ordered To Pay Big Fine For Violations In Trump Case

In a significant legal blow to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, a judge has ordered her office to pay more than $54,000 in attorneys’ fees and legal expenses after determining that her office intentionally violated Georgia’s Open Records Act. The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by Ashleigh Merchant, attorney for Michael Roman, a former Trump campaign official and one of the 19 individuals indicted in connection with alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia.

The decision, issued by Fulton County Superior Court Judge Rachel Krause, sharply criticized the conduct of Willis’ office. Krause found that the DA’s office repeatedly failed to comply with open records requests, acted in bad faith, and handled Merchant’s inquiries with hostility and disregard for standard procedure. The ruling underscores growing scrutiny surrounding the conduct and transparency of the prosecution team at the center of one of the nation’s most high-profile criminal cases involving former President Donald Trump.

Background: Roman’s Indictment and the Lawsuit That Followed

Michael Roman, who worked as director of Election Day operations for the Trump campaign, was indicted in August 2023 alongside Trump and 17 others. The sweeping indictment, brought by a grand jury in Atlanta, alleged a coordinated scheme to unlawfully overturn Trump’s narrow electoral defeat in Georgia through means that included pressuring officials, making false statements, and unlawfully accessing voting systems.

Roman, like Trump and the majority of the co-defendants, has pleaded not guilty. The charges were filed under Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, typically used to prosecute organized crime. Four of the original defendants have entered guilty pleas and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors.

In January 2024, attorney Ashleigh Merchant filed a lawsuit on Roman’s behalf alleging that the Fulton County District Attorney’s office had failed to comply with multiple public records requests, many of which were filed months earlier. Among the documents sought were media analysis reports, contract details with external vendors, and a list of attorneys and staff hired by Willis, including information on confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements.

Judge Krause concluded that the office’s actions were “intentional, not done in good faith, and were substantially groundless and vexatious.” She ruled that the DA’s office “lacked substantial justification” for its failure to produce the requested documents and that the treatment of Merchant’s requests deviated significantly from standard practice.

“Her requests were handled differently than other requests,” Krause wrote. “The office was openly hostile to her, which indicates a lack of good faith.”

Krause ordered that Willis provide all remaining responsive records to Merchant within 30 days, and that her office pay $54,431.50 in attorneys’ fees and litigation costs.

DA’s Office Signals Intent to Appeal

A spokesperson for the DA’s office responded to the ruling on Monday, stating that they intend to appeal Judge Krause’s decision. The statement did not elaborate on the legal grounds for the appeal or whether the documents in question have since been located.

Merchant, however, said the lawsuit was a last resort.

“We had no intention of bringing a lawsuit,” she said. “We truly had no choice because they were ignoring it, denying the existence of documents we knew existed, and opposing us at every turn.”

According to court testimony, the DA’s open records officer, Dexter Bond, admitted that although it was customary to call requesters when a request was unclear, he refused to speak with Merchant by phone, even as her requests were stonewalled. This decision, Judge Krause noted, further demonstrated “a pattern of obstruction and a lack of transparency.”

The Nature of the Requested Documents

Among the documents Merchant sought were records from outside firms hired by Willis’ office to analyze public perception of her statements to the media—particularly those related to the Trump election interference case. These reports were reportedly commissioned shortly before the DA began pursuing charges against Roman, Trump, and the other defendants.

Merchant also requested a roster of attorneys and consultants retained by the DA’s office and any non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements signed by staff members working on the case. These records are viewed by the defense as potentially significant to understanding how Willis and her office managed the public messaging and internal coordination of such a high-stakes prosecution.

Compounding Controversy: The Special Prosecutor’s Relationship

The records controversy is only the latest in a series of challenges for Fani Willis. In early 2024, Merchant filed another high-profile motion that revealed that Willis had been in a romantic relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade, whom she had hired to lead the Trump-RICO case. That relationship, undisclosed at the time of Wade’s appointment, has been cited as a potential conflict of interest and formed the basis for further legal challenges to the prosecution’s credibility.

The Georgia Court of Appeals, in December 2023, ruled that Willis and her office could not continue leading the case, citing an “appearance of impropriety.” That decision has since been appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court, where justices have not yet announced whether they will hear the case. In January, Willis submitted a request asking the state’s highest court to overturn the appellate court’s ruling and allow her to continue prosecuting the case.

While the legal debate over the conflict of interest plays out in Georgia’s higher courts, the latest open records ruling adds yet another legal hurdle for Willis and further questions about her office’s management, ethics, and transparency.

The Future of the Case Against Trump and Others

The future of the Georgia election interference case remains uncertain. Even if the Georgia Supreme Court reinstates Willis’ authority, it is unlikely that the case will be brought to trial before the 2024 presidential election, particularly if Trump is re-elected. Sitting presidents are generally shielded from criminal prosecution during their term, raising doubts about the viability of continuing the case in such a scenario.

Michael Roman remains one of 14 defendants still facing active charges. The outcome of his motion to disqualify Willis may set an important precedent for how politically charged prosecutions are conducted in Georgia, particularly when public confidence and legal impartiality are at stake.

Broader Implications

The ruling against Willis also underscores a larger trend: heightened scrutiny of prosecutors pursuing high-profile political cases, especially in polarized environments. While open records laws are designed to guarantee transparency and accountability, Judge Krause’s findings suggest that public officials—regardless of the political sensitivity of their cases—must adhere to basic standards of openness and fairness.

With both legal and political pressures mounting, Fani Willis now faces a crossroads: defending her office’s conduct while trying to preserve one of the most consequential prosecutions in recent American history.