Fani Willis Ordered to Pay $22K Over Records Request Violations

Last week, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis found herself at the center of a judicial rebuke as a Georgia court ordered her to pay nearly $22,000 in legal fees to Judicial Watch. The court found that Willis’ office ignored open records laws and misrepresented its possession of key communications, sparking new concerns over transparency and accountability in her administration.

The controversy began in August 2023 when Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog organization, submitted an Open Records Act (ORA) request to Willis’ office. They sought communications between Willis’ office, the Department of Justice’s special counsel Jack Smith, and the House committee investigating the January 6, 2021, Capitol protests.

In response, Willis’ office claimed it did not possess any “responsive records.” Judicial Watch, however, suspected otherwise and independently uncovered evidence contradicting Willis’ denial. These suspicions led to a lawsuit filed in March 2024, accusing Willis of “falsely denying” the existence of relevant communications.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney found that Willis’ office had repeatedly violated open records laws. In his ruling, McBurney criticized the DA’s office for ignoring the original ORA request and falsely claiming that no records existed.

“The District Attorney’s Office flatly ignored Plaintiff’s original ORA request, conducting no search and simply (and falsely) informing the County’s Open Records Custodian that no responsive records existed,” McBurney wrote.

When the court pressed Willis’ office, it eventually acknowledged the existence of some records—communications with the House January 6 Committee—but argued they were exempt from disclosure. Willis’ office maintained its stance that no communications with Special Counsel Jack Smith existed.

McBurney called this “late revelation” a blatant violation of open records laws, noting that compliance with such requests is mandatory, not optional. “Non-compliance has consequences,” McBurney emphasized, ordering Willis to pay $21,578 in legal fees to Judicial Watch within two weeks.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton praised the ruling, calling it a victory for transparency and accountability.

“Fani Willis flouted the law, and the court is right to slam her and require, at a minimum, the payment of nearly $22,000 to Judicial Watch,” Fitton said. “But in the end, Judicial Watch wants the full truth on what she was hiding – her office’s political collusion with the Pelosi January 6 committee to ‘get Trump.’”

The DA’s office declined to comment on the ruling, further fueling speculation about its motives and handling of the case.

This isn’t the first time Willis has faced allegations of misconduct. Over the past year, her office has been embroiled in several controversies, including accusations of financial mismanagement and ethical breaches.

In December 2024, Willis was disqualified from prosecuting a Georgia case against President-elect Donald Trump due to an alleged affair with special prosecutor Nathan Wade. The revelation undermined her credibility in a high-profile case that many viewed as politically charged.

Adding to her troubles, Willis’ office has been accused of misusing $488,000 in federal grants intended to establish a youth gang prevention center. A whistleblower revealed that the funds were diverted to unrelated expenses, prompting an investigation into her office’s financial practices.

The ruling against Willis comes at a politically sensitive time, as she continues to face scrutiny for her handling of cases tied to former President Donald Trump. Judicial Watch’s lawsuit and the subsequent ruling have amplified claims from Trump allies that Willis has weaponized her office for political purposes.

Critics argue that the uncovered communications could reveal politically motivated collusion between Willis’ office, the January 6 Committee, and federal authorities. Judicial Watch has vowed to pursue full disclosure of the records, intensifying pressure on Willis to explain her actions.

The case raises broader concerns about transparency and accountability in public office. Open records laws are designed to ensure that government officials operate in the public interest, but Willis’ actions have highlighted how these laws can be circumvented.

Judge McBurney’s ruling sends a clear message: public officials are not above the law. As the investigation into Willis’ office continues, the public will likely demand greater accountability from officials entrusted with upholding justice.

For Fani Willis, the $22,000 penalty is just the beginning. The case has damaged her credibility and raised questions about her fitness to hold office. Judicial Watch’s persistence in pursuing the truth underscores the importance of watchdog organizations in holding government officials accountable.

As the legal battles surrounding Willis’ office continue to unfold, one thing is clear: the public’s demand for transparency and accountability has never been more urgent. Whether this ruling marks a turning point or merely another chapter in a long series of controversies remains to be seen.