Fani Willis Required to Compensate Almost $22K in Attorney Fees for Violating Open Records Law – One America News Network
OAN Staff Brooke Mallory
6:40 PM – Thursday, January 9, 2025
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is now facing penalties from a Georgia court after repeatedly violating state open records laws, with a substantial fine being imposed.
Advertisement
Following an open records request, Willis’ office denied having any documents related to communications with special counsel Jack Smith or the now-disbanded House select committee investigating the January 6th events at the U.S. Capitol, as previously reported by Law&Crime.
In a lawsuit initiated by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, Judge Robert McBurney of the Fulton County Superior Court mandated the district attorney’s office to produce the requested documents and explain their unavailability. The judge also indicated that attorneys’ fees could be levied.
As per the recent court ruling, dated January 3rd but made public this week, plaintiffs were awarded $21,578 in legal fees and costs after hearing the arguments from Willis and her team.
“Fani Willis disregarded the law, and the court is correct to penalize her, requiring a payment of nearly $22,000 to Judicial Watch,” stated Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch, in a press release. “Judicial Watch seeks full disclosure of what she attempted to conceal — her office’s political collaboration with the Pelosi January 6 committee aimed at ‘getting Trump.’”
Judicial Watch claimed in the lawsuit that Willis had made “likely false” assertions concerning the retention of the requested documents.
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, determining that Willis had violated the law by consistently misrepresenting the existence of at least some of the requested documents and by procedurally losing the case through inaction.
The court’s ruling details the extent of violations of Georgia’s Open Records Act (ORA) by Willis and her staff.
“Fundamentally, Defendant recognized her breach of the ORA by defaulting,” McBurney indicated. “Evidence supports this: according to her Records Custodian’s admission, the District Attorney’s Office entirely neglected the Plaintiff’s original ORA request, failing to conduct a search and incorrectly telling the County’s Open Records Custodian that no relevant records existed.”
Willis has recently conceded that there are indeed documents relating to the January 6th committee. However, her office maintains that no correspondence with the special counsel occurred. Initially, she stated that no such documents could be found for over a year.
“We now know that this is simply untrue: once compelled by a Court order, Defendant was able to identify relevant records but has designated them as exempt,” McBurney noted. “Even if these records turn out to be exempt from disclosure for legitimate public policy reasons, this late disclosure constitutes a clear violation of the ORA. There is no substantial justification for this; there was no search conducted until prompted by civil litigation.”
In fact, the court acknowledged that Willis’ office did possess at least one non-exempt document. This document was a letter sent to the head of the committee on January 6th. This letter was central to the lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, which obtained the document after Willis had denied its existence.
Willis eventually provided the letter shortly after defaulting, attached to a note submitted in compliance with a court order.
The judge recalled this turnaround sharply:
“In this memo, Defendant claimed that no records relating to one category of Plaintiff’s requests (communications with former Special Counsel Jack Smith) were found, while there were indeed records concerning another set of requests (communications with the United States House January 6th Committee) — but these were deemed exempt. Despite these reservations, Defendant attached to her memo the letter sent to the Chairman of the House Committee, which (1) does not appear to fall under any of the exemptions noted and (2) had already been identified by Plaintiff as a relevant record that had been incorrectly withheld.”
“Somehow, the situation changed,” the judge added. “After informing Plaintiff four separate times that her team conducted a thorough search but found no relevant documents, it suddenly turned out there were records — but they were not disclosable under the ORA.”
The DA’s office provided crucial details regarding the events leading up to this situation.
“Plaintiff’s deposition of Defendant’s Records Custodian clarified this enigma: he admitted that no search for records was conducted back in August 2023,” the court noted. “It was simply a refusal, not an inquiry. He further explained that when Plaintiff persisted and filed a lawsuit, there was still no organized or comprehensive review of the records in the District Attorney’s Office.”
McBurney went on to criticize the DA’s office for its lack of diligence in adhering to the law in a footnote.
“Even after litigation commenced, the Records Custodian merely inquired with certain staff members if they thought they had any relevant records; there was no thorough examination of emails or case files.”
Willis was in default last April following the case’s filing in March 2024. The legal process has since moved slowly, culminating in December with a formal default ruling.
Judicial Watch submitted a supplementary request for the court to appoint a special master to investigate the agency’s records after the prosecutor was found to be in default.
Willis has until January 16th to respond to the motion, with the monetary amount owed by her office due by January 17th.
“The ORA is not merely suggestive; it is obligatory,” McBurney concluded. “Failure to comply carries consequences, including the possibility of liability for the attorney’s fees and litigation costs incurred by the requesting party.”
Stay updated! Receive breaking news alerts directly in your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts
Advertisements below
