Inside the Chrisleys’ $25 Million Legal Malpractice Battle

Reality television couple Todd and Julie Chrisley have launched a high-profile legal malpractice lawsuit seeking more than $25 million from their former defense attorney and his law firm, claiming that serious mistakes in their representation helped send them to federal prison and cost them their livelihoods. This case offers a detailed window into how legal malpractice claims work in complex criminal prosecutions and what happens when clients argue that their lawyers failed in fundamental ways.

Background: From Fraud Case to Malpractice Claim

The Chrisleys were key figures in a federal fraud and tax evasion prosecution that resulted in convictions and prison sentences, as well as the loss of their reality television income and endorsement deals. They now say that part of the reason they were convicted lies not only in the government’s evidence, but in what their lawyers allegedly failed to do.

According to media reports, the malpractice lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and names attorney Christopher Anulewicz and his former law firm, Balch & Bingham LLP, as defendants. The complaint accuses them of negligence, breach of contract, and placing their own interests ahead of their clients’ rights during a complex federal criminal trial.

The role of the Georgia Department of Revenue search

A central issue in the new lawsuit is a 2017 search by the Georgia Department of Revenue, which produced financial information later used in the federal case. The Chrisleys assert that their defense team properly challenged some of the state search materials, leading to suppression of certain items, but failed to seek suppression of additional evidence that allegedly grew out of the same search, including emails, bank records, and other financial documents.

They now claim that if their attorneys had timely moved to suppress this derived evidence, much of the prosecution’s case could have been weakened or excluded from trial, potentially changing the outcome of the criminal case.

Key Allegations Against the Former Attorney and Law Firm

The malpractice complaint paints a detailed picture of alleged missteps. While the full pleading spans many pages, several core accusations have been reported by major outlets.

• Failure to file critical suppression motions on time: The Chrisleys claim counsel did not raise a key legal argument about the fruits of the 2017 search before relevant deadlines expired, leaving important evidence unchallenged.
• Inadequate experience for a major criminal case: The lawsuit alleges that the lead partner lacked substantial criminal defense experience, despite the case’s national significance, and that the firm knew or should have known this.
• Self-interest and conflicts: They contend that the law firm was motivated by publicity and financial gain due to the Chrisley name, rather than by providing seasoned defense representation.
• Questionable side investment: Media reports note allegations that their attorney steered them into a $75,000 investment in his brother-in-law’s food truck venture, allegedly exploiting his role as counsel while neglecting his duties in the criminal case.

Collectively, these allegations are framed as a combination of legal negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, all tied to the attorney–client relationship.

What the Chrisleys Say They Lost

Legal malpractice cases often focus on damages — what the clients claim to have lost as a result of their lawyer’s conduct. Here, the alleged losses are extensive and intertwined with the couple’s very public careers.

The plaintiffs are seeking a jury trial and compensatory damages “in excess of $25 million,” along with attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed appropriate by the court.

Understanding Legal Malpractice in Criminal Cases

Legal malpractice generally refers to a situation where a lawyer is alleged to have breached a duty of care owed to the client, causing harm. In criminal cases, malpractice claims can be especially complex because they intersect with constitutional rights and the criminal justice system’s procedures.

Basic elements of a malpractice claim

While states vary in the details, most malpractice claims rely on several core elements, often articulated in legal treatises and case law:

• Attorney–client relationship: The plaintiff must show that the defendant lawyer represented them, creating a duty of care.
• Breach of duty: The client must demonstrate that the lawyer’s conduct fell below the standard of a reasonably competent attorney, such as missing critical deadlines or failing to research and present viable legal arguments.
• Causation: There must be a causal link between the lawyer’s breach and the client’s harm — often called the “case within a case,” meaning the client has to show that a better representation would likely have produced a better legal outcome.
• Damages: The client needs to prove actual harms, such as financial losses, incarceration, or lost opportunities, and quantify them.

Professional standards, including guidance from the American Bar Association (ABA)

Malpractice and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel

In criminal law, attorney performance is often judged first through the lens of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. In the landmark decision Strickland v. Washington, the United States Supreme Court established a two-part test: a defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense.[11]

Although the Chrisleys’ lawsuit is a civil malpractice claim, allegations about missed suppression motions and inadequate experience echo concepts from the Strickland framework. In both contexts, the central question is whether better lawyering could have led to a different outcome.

The Suppression Issue: Why Deadlines Matter

One of the most striking allegations in the Chrisley suit is the claim that their lawyers missed key deadlines to challenge evidence derived from the Georgia Department of Revenue search. In federal practice, the timing and content of pretrial motions can be decisive.

Searches, seizures, and suppression motions

Under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, individuals are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. When evidence is obtained in violation of this protection, defendants can seek to exclude it via a motion to suppress. If granted, such motions can substantially weaken the prosecution’s case.[12]

Federal criminal rules emphasize the importance of raising suppression issues before trial. For example, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12 requires many defenses and objections to be made by a specified pretrial deadline, or they may be deemed waived absent good cause.[12] This is why the timing of the Chrisleys’ suppression arguments is now at the center of their civil claim: they argue that counsel’s delay effectively surrendered an opportunity to keep crucial evidence out of court.

Derived evidence and the “fruit of the poisonous tree” concept

The Chrisleys’ complaint goes beyond the original search and focuses on later evidence that allegedly grew out of it, including banking and email records. In constitutional law, the idea that derivative evidence may be tainted by an unlawful search is sometimes referred to as the “fruit of the poisonous tree.”

Courts examine whether evidence is sufficiently connected to an earlier illegality and, if so, whether exceptions — such as inevitable discovery or independent source — apply. Competent defense counsel is expected to investigate these issues thoroughly and raise them through timely motions, especially in complex financial cases where records can play a pivotal role.

Conflicts of Interest and Side Business Allegations

Beyond technical legal arguments, the Chrisley lawsuit includes allegations that their attorney promoted a side investment opportunity to them during the representation, involving a startup food truck business linked to his brother-in-law. This raises questions about conflicts of interest and professional ethics.

Ethical rules on business transactions with clients

Most state ethics codes, which are often modeled on the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, impose strict requirements when lawyers enter business transactions with clients. A lawyer’s personal financial interests can compromise independent judgment, making disclosure, fairness, and informed consent critical.[10]

• Full disclosure: Lawyers must explain the terms of any transaction and the risks to the client.
• Fair and reasonable terms: The arrangement should be fair to the client and comparable to what the client could receive in an arm’s-length transaction.
• Opportunity to seek independent counsel: Clients are typically advised to obtain independent legal advice before agreeing.

The Chrisleys’ allegations suggest that, instead of focusing on their federal defense, their attorney promoted this investment, which they characterize as an exploitation of the attorney–client relationship. If proven, such conduct can support both ethics complaints and civil claims for breach of fiduciary duty.

Potential Legal and Practical Outcomes

At this stage, the malpractice lawsuit represents allegations, not proven facts. The defendants have an opportunity to respond, and the case may proceed through motions, discovery, and potentially trial. Several broad outcomes are possible, based on how courts typically handle such disputes:

• Dismissal or summary judgment: The court could conclude that even assuming some errors occurred, the Chrisleys cannot show causation or damages at the level alleged.
• Settlement: Many malpractice cases settle, particularly when both sides wish to avoid the cost and publicity of trial.
• Jury verdict: If the case goes to a jury, jurors will weigh expert testimony about standard legal practice, review the underlying criminal case, and decide whether malpractice occurred and what compensation is appropriate.

Because this suit follows highly publicized criminal proceedings and involves significant claimed damages, its trajectory will be closely watched by legal observers and media outlets.

Broader Lessons for Defendants and Lawyers

Regardless of how the Chrisleys’ case ultimately resolves, it highlights several lessons relevant to both criminal defendants and attorneys handling high-stakes matters.

For clients facing serious charges

• Assess experience and focus: Defendants should be attentive to whether their lawyers have meaningful criminal defense experience, especially in complex federal cases.
• Monitor pretrial motion practice: Clients can reasonably ask about strategies for suppression, discovery challenges, and deadlines, recognizing that timing often shapes admissible evidence.
• Be cautious about side business dealings: Clients should treat investment pitches from their lawyers with caution and consider obtaining independent advice.

For defense attorneys

• Prioritize competence and preparation: The ABA and state bars stress that lawyers must handle matters only when they can do so competently or associate with experienced co-counsel.[10]
• Respect deadlines: Federal rules and constitutional doctrines make clear that missed pretrial deadlines can close off important legal arguments and affect outcomes.[12]
• Avoid problematic conflicts: Business dealings with clients are restricted for good reason; even the appearance of self-dealing can undermine trust and create malpractice exposure.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do criminal defendants often sue their lawyers for malpractice?

Legal malpractice suits by criminal defendants are not uncommon, but they are challenging. Plaintiffs must generally show not only that their lawyers were negligent, but also that they were harmed in a way that meets civil standards of causation and damages. In many jurisdictions, a prior finding of ineffective assistance or relief from conviction can influence whether malpractice claims are viable, though rules vary.

Is missed evidence suppression always malpractice?

Not necessarily. Whether failing to file a suppression motion constitutes malpractice depends on the strength of the legal basis, the information available at the time, and professional norms. Courts often rely on expert testimony to determine whether a reasonably competent attorney would have pursued a particular motion under similar circumstances.[11][12]

Can reputational harm be part of malpractice damages?

Yes, in some cases. Plaintiffs may claim reputational harm, loss of professional standing, and missed opportunities as part of their damages, especially when their careers depend heavily on public image. Quantifying such losses can be complex and may require expert economic analysis or testimony.

How do ethical violations relate to malpractice?

Ethical violations, such as conflicts of interest or business dealings that contravene professional rules, can support malpractice claims but do not automatically equal liability. Courts still require proof of damage and causation. However, evidence of ethical breaches can strongly influence how juries and judges view a lawyer’s overall conduct.[10]

What should clients do if they suspect malpractice?

Clients who believe they were harmed by their attorney’s negligence should consider consulting an independent lawyer experienced in professional liability. They may also file a grievance with the relevant state bar, which can investigate ethical violations even if civil litigation is not pursued. Acting promptly is critical because statutes of limitation restrict how long clients have to bring malpractice claims.

Similar Articles

Your First Credit Card: How to Avoid Costly Fine‑Print Traps

Smart Student Borrowing: A Financial Literacy Guide

Brendlin v. California and the Fourth Amendment Passenger Rule

Miranda v. Arizona and the Birth of Modern Police Warnings

Bankruptcy Glossary: Plain-Language Guide To Common Terms Now

Understanding Bankruptcy Noticing in Federal Courts

Author

Sneha TeteBeauty & Lifestyle Writer

 

Sneha is a relationships and lifestyle writer with a strong foundation in applied linguistics and certified training in relationship coaching. She brings over five years of writing experience to waytolegal,  crafting thoughtful, research-driven content that empowers readers to build healthier relationships, boost emotional well-being, and embrace holistic living.

Read full bio of Sneha Tete