State v. ROMAN (Nine Cases)

Fani Willis, the district attorney for Fulton County, indicted Donald Trump and several associates on racketeering charges over an alleged scheme to overturn Georgia's 2020 election results. The defendants asked a trial court to disqualify Willis and her office, arguing she had a conflict of interest and had created an appearance of impropriety through a romantic relationship with a prosecutor she hired, Nathan Wade. The trial judge found no actual conflict but did find a significant appearance of impropriety, and gave Willis a choice: step aside herself, or have Wade withdraw. Wade withdrew instead. The defendants appealed, arguing the wrong prosecutor was removed, and the Court of Appeals of Georgia agreed, ordering Willis herself disqualified. The State asked the Supreme Court of Georgia to review that ruling. The Supreme Court denied the request, meaning it will not take up the case, so the Court of Appeals' decision removing Willis stands.

The court held that this case did not present a legal question of sufficient statewide importance to justify review, because the narrow question actually decided below, whether the trial court picked the wrong remedy, is unlikely to recur and does not conflict with other decisions, even though a broader question about disqualifying prosecutors for an appearance of impropriety alone remains unsettled.

Willis is permanently barred from prosecuting Trump and his co-defendants in this case, and a new prosecutor must take over. The denial also leaves unresolved, for now, a broader legal question about when an appearance of impropriety alone can disqualify any lawyer or prosecutor in Georgia.

Petition for certiorari denied

1. The Supreme Court of Georgia can only review Court of Appeals decisions through certiorari, a discretionary process reserved for cases raising legal questions of gravity or great public importance to Georgia law, not simply cases with public attention or possible errors below.
2. Justice Pinson's concurrence reasoned that because the State never cross-appealed the trial court's finding of an appearance of impropriety, the Court of Appeals' decision was limited to whether the trial court chose the right remedy, a fact-bound question unlikely to recur or create conflicting law.
3. The concurrence concluded that even under a broader reading of the Court of Appeals opinion, the disqualification question was not clearly in conflict with other precedent and its recurrence was too speculative to justify review now, though a future case might warrant it.
4. Justice McMillian's dissent argued the opposite: that the Court of Appeals necessarily held that an appearance of impropriety alone can require disqualifying an attorney, a legal principle affecting every lawyer in Georgia, conflicting with other Court of Appeals rulings, and resting on an old precedent (Blumenfeld v. Borenstein) that relied on a professional-conduct rule the State Bar repealed in 2002.
5. The dissent pointed to a new Georgia statute awarding attorney's fees to defendants whose cases are dismissed after a prosecutor is disqualified for misconduct, reasoning this creates a financial incentive to raise disqualification claims, making the unsettled legal standard likely to recur frequently.
6. Because a majority of participating Justices agreed the case did not meet the standard for certiorari review, the petition was denied, leaving the Court of Appeals' remedy, and the extension of DA Willis's disqualification, in place.

• Fani Willis disqualification
• Trump Georgia case
• appearance of impropriety
• prosecutor conflict of interest
• certiorari denial