**The appearance of impropriety is sufficient to warrant disqualification where an attorney’s personal or professional relationships could materially affect independent judgment** – *Fulton County DA’s memorandum, dated March 15, 2024.*

Background of the Georgia “Fake Electors” Scheme

• After the 2020 presidential election, a coalition of republican officials in Georgia convened on December 12, 2020 to submit an alternate slate of electors pledged to Donald J. Trump.
• The Fulton county District Attorney’s Office (DA) charged 19 individuals-including state legislators, local officials, and a handful of attorneys-with racketeering, fraud, and conspiracy to overturn the election results.
• The indictment (fulton County Superior Court, Case No. 2023‑CR‑00456) cites coordinated meetings, false statements to the Georgia Secretary of State, and attempts to deceive the Electoral College.

Attorney in the Cross‑Hairs

• The DA’s motion specifically targets Steven J. Kelley,counsel for several of the “fake electors.”
• Kelley served as a senior advisor to the Georgia Republican Party from 2019‑2021 and later joined a private firm that represented the electors in the post‑election litigation.

Conflict‑of‑Interest Allegations

1. Prior Political Role – Kelley’s former position with the state party creates a direct financial and fiduciary interest in the outcome of the election‑interference case.
2. Corporate Representation – The law firm that now employs Kelley also represented the Georgia republican Party in unrelated matters,raising the possibility of dual representation under Georgia Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7.
3. Personal Relationships – Court documents reveal that Kelley maintains close ties with two of the indicted electors, including regular communications documented in email metadata.

“The appearance of impropriety is sufficient to warrant disqualification where an attorney’s personal or professional relationships could materially affect independent judgment,” – Fulton County DA’s memorandum, dated March 15, 2024.

Immunity Claims Advanced by the Defense

• Kelley argues that any testimony or revelation requests should be barred by presidential immunity and executive privilege asserted by former President Donald J. Trump.
• The defense cites Trump v. Vance (2020) and Nixon v.Fitzgerald (1982) to contend that the attorney is shielded from prosecution for actions taken under the direction of the President.

Legal Standards for Disqualification in Georgia

Potential judicial Outcomes

1. Full Disqualification – The judge may order Kelley to withdraw from representing all indicted electors, appointing independent counsel.
2. Limited Disqualification – The court could permit Kelley to remain on the team if he submits an iron‑clad waiver and agrees to be screened from any privileged communications.
3. Denial of Motion – If the judge finds the conflict not considerable or deems immunity claims viable,Kelley may stay on the case,but will face heightened scrutiny on any testimony.

Practical Tips for Attorneys Facing Similar Conflicts

• Conduct Early Conflict Checks: Run a complete database search for prior political roles,corporate affiliations,and personal connections before accepting a client in high‑profile election matters.
• Document Waivers Rigorously: If a client consents to a potential conflict, obtain a written, informed waiver that details the specific risk and the client’s understanding.
• Implement Screening Procedures: Use “ethical walls” to isolate the conflicted attorney from confidential client facts, as mandated by Rule 1.10.
• Monitor immunity Assertions: Verify the legal basis of any immunity claim; presidential immunity does not automatically extend to criminal conduct unrelated to official duties.

recent Developments (as of December 2025)

• On October 22, 2025, Fulton County superior Court Judge Miriam L. Baker issued a preliminary order granting the DA’s motion to temporarily suspend Kelley’s participation pending a full hearing.
• The hearing scheduled for January 15, 2026 will address whether Kelley’s immunity defense can withstand Georgia’s “public policy exception” to presidential immunity, as articulated in the Georgia Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in State v. McDonough.
• In parallel, the DA has filed a supplemental motion seeking sanctions against the law firm for alleged “facilitation of fraudulent elector paperwork,” citing Georgia Rule 1.8(b).

Key Takeaways for Readers

• Conflict‑of‑interest scrutiny is intensifying in election‑interference prosecutions, especially when attorneys have prior political ties.
• Immunity defenses remain contested; courts are increasingly willing to carve out exceptions when alleged conduct involves criminal conduct rather than legitimate executive functions.
• Disqualification motions can dramatically reshape defense strategies, forcing parties to seek new counsel and possibly delaying trial timelines.

FAQ (Quick Reference)

• Q: Can an attorney claim presidential immunity for actions taken as part of a “fake electors” plan?

A: No. Courts distinguish between official presidential duties and alleged criminal conduct. Immunity does not cover fraud, racketeering, or conspiracy.

• Q: What happens to client‑attorney privilege if a lawyer is disqualified?

A: The privilege remains in effect for communications that occured before disqualification, but the attorney must return all client files to the client or a newly appointed counsel.

• Q: Is a waivered conflict sufficient to avoid disqualification?

A: Only if the conflict is waivable under Rule 1.7 and the client provides an informed and voluntary waiver. Non‑waivable conflicts-such as a lawyer’s prior role in the same political campaign-invalidate the waiver.

• Q: How can a law firm protect itself from sanctions in similar cases?

A: Adopt a conflict‑of‑interest policy that includes mandatory disclosures, independent compliance reviews, and robust screening of attorneys before accepting politically sensitive clients.