In a recent development, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis has come under scrutiny for alleged discrepancies in the payment of her legal team. Sources have revealed that one of Willis’s special prosecutors, who worked on the high-profile case against Donald Trump and others for election interference in 2020, was compensated at a notably lower rate compared to another attorney, Nathan Wade, despite having more expertise in the relevant legal area.
Court documents indicate that Nathan Wade, with no prior experience in racketeering law, was compensated at $250 per hour for his role in the prosecution. In contrast, John Floyd, a recognized authority on Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) cases, was paid $150 per hour during the same period. This revelation has raised questions about the equity and criteria used in the compensation of the legal team.
The issue has gained further attention following allegations of a personal relationship between Willis and Wade, which have been met with denials and accusations of racial bias by Willis. She has defended her decisions, stating that all three special prosecutors she appointed were treated equally. However, the compensation disparity, as highlighted in the court records, has fueled ongoing debates about the integrity and transparency of legal proceedings in high-stakes cases.
Further complicating the matter is the fact that the third special prosecutor, Anna Cross, was reportedly paid $250 per hour in 2022. Details about agreements made with Floyd after April 2022 are not readily available, adding to the opacity of the situation. Willis’s office, closed for a government holiday, has not responded to these allegations, and a representative for Floyd’s office declined to comment while acknowledging the different expertise and hiring times of the lawyers involved.
Willis, speaking at a local church, has accused her critics of singling out Wade, the only black prosecutor she hired, suggesting racial motivations behind these accusations. The controversy continues as both the legal and public communities await further developments and clarity on these allegations.