Fani Willis blocked from $16.8M–$17M legal-fee fight as judge lets Fulton County step in
fani willis is now formally shut out of the escalating courtroom battle over nearly $17 million in attorney’s fees connected to the collapsed Georgia election interference racketeering case. At 4: 44 PM ET on March 9, 2026, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee denied the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office bid to intervene, while allowing Fulton County itself to enter the dispute. The ruling focuses the next phase of litigation on who pays—and who gets a seat at the table—as 14 former defendants, including President Donald Trump, seek reimbursement under a newly enacted Georgia law.
Judge Scott McAfee draws a hard line for Fani Willis’ office
McAfee’s order states the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office failed to show it had a legal right to intervene in the attorney-fee proceedings. The judge emphasized that the office remains disqualified and cannot participate further, reiterating that the disqualification was previously ordered due to conflicts of interest.
In his written ruling, McAfee found the state’s interests are already represented because a district attorney pro tempore was appointed after the disqualification. That point undercut the argument that the district attorney’s office needed to be involved to protect budget or financial concerns. McAfee wrote that “Because the FCDA’s interests are adequately represented by the State, and as the office was ‘wholly disqualified, ’ the motion to intervene is denied. ”
The judge also flagged that many of the arguments raised by the disqualified office would require defending prosecutorial decisions that were already deemed compromised by the conflict-of-interest finding, which created “an appearance of impropriety” and undermined public confidence.
Nearly $17 million at stake as 14 former defendants seek reimbursement
The pending claims total $16, 853, 810. 28 in attorney’s fees and costs sought by 14 former defendants, including President Donald Trump. The requests rely on a newly enacted Georgia law that allows defendants to recover expenses when a prosecutor is disqualified.
This fee fight follows the collapse of the once-sweeping racketeering case that began with a 2023 indictment. Prosecutors had alleged a coordinated effort to overturn Georgia’s 2020 presidential election results, including claims involving alternate electors and pressure on state officials. After the disqualification decision, the case was ultimately dropped, and former defendants moved to recover their legal expenses under the new reimbursement mechanism.
In the middle of the dispute, fani willis is directly affected by the ruling’s core consequence: the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office is barred from re-entering the litigation to argue about the fee demands.
Fulton County steps in: “the financial buck” could land on taxpayers
While the district attorney’s office was denied intervention, McAfee granted Fulton County’s request to intervene, allowing county officials to participate in the attorney-fee fight. The county argued it has a direct financial stake because it provides most of the funding for the district attorney’s office.
McAfee agreed, writing that the “financial buck appears likely in some form to eventually stop at the county’s desk, ” signaling that taxpayers could ultimately bear the cost of any court-ordered payments. The judge also said the county could offer important insight into budget issues and the financial relationship between the district attorney’s office and local government.
Immediate reactions and the next phase
McAfee’s ruling sets up the next stage of litigation focused on the nearly $17 million request and the procedures the court will use to evaluate it. The order itself underscores that the office tied to fani willis cannot participate, while Fulton County can argue its financial exposure and budgeting concerns.
What comes next is a courtroom fight with Fulton County now formally in the case, and the state represented through the post-disqualification appointment structure described by the court. The key near-term issue remains how the court handles the 14 separate fee-and-cost claims and how any payment obligations are allocated following the disqualification and dismissal of the underlying prosecution.
