Federal prosecutors suggested on Sunday evening that they might pursue disbarment for Patrick Fitzgerald, the lawyer representing former FBI Director James Comey.
Prosecutors allege that Fitzgerald may have contributed to Comey “improperly disclosing classified information,” as noted in a recent public filing.
Comey faces accusations of obstructing Congress by allegedly making false statements about allowing someone to act as an “anonymous source for news reporting” during his testimony in September 2020.
In a filing on Monday, Comey’s legal team asserted that it is “patently false” to claim that Fitzgerald facilitated any classified disclosures.
“In short, there’s no credible basis to ascribe any criminal actions to either Mr. Comey or his lead counsel,” the statement from Comey’s lawyer indicated. “Similarly, there’s no legitimate reason to suggest a ‘conflict’ exists between Mr. Comey and his attorneys, much less to propose disbarment for lead counsel.”
Shortly after being dismissed by President Donald Trump in May 2017, Comey sent copies of four memos to Fitzgerald, instructing him to distribute them to his other attorneys. One of these memos described a conversation between Trump and a New York Times reporter, according to a 2019 report from the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General (OIG).
The report implied that the individual Comey purportedly authorized as an anonymous source likely refers to Mr. Richman, another attorney on his team.
The OIG report detailed that Comey hadn’t informed anyone at the FBI of his intention to share the memos before emailing them to Fitzgerald. It noted that Comey also deleted the email and its attached PDF and did not keep hard copies.
Comey’s defense team argued that the four memos weren’t classified when shared with his attorneys.
The OIG report mentioned that the memo sent to the NYT “contained no classified information,” but warned that Comey’s actions set a risky precedent for current and former FBI employees with access to sensitive information.
Prosecutors raised concerns about the consistency and qualifications of the current lead defense attorney, referencing this precedent in their filing.
Some evidence in the government’s possession falls under attorney-client privilege, a point which may complicate the prosecution’s case. They have requested approval for a “filter team” to separate privileged evidence.
In their filing, prosecutors asserted that a swift ruling on the “filter protocol” is essential to avoid any delays in the proceedings.
“Some communications in these privileged materials date back to the same time as the subject of the Department of Justice OIG report,” the government explained. “Parties need access to all relevant and non-privileged information before addressing disputes or disqualification issues. The sooner protected information is reviewed, the sooner motions can be appropriately filed in court.”
The defense opposed the request for an expedited ruling, expressing their intent to avoid delays without allowing the government to carry out what they described as illegal reviews or infringe on Mr. Comey’s privileges.
They emphasized that claims to undermine the reputation of the lead defense attorney do not justify granting the government’s motion.
Fitzgerald chose not to comment, referring to public submissions from the defense.
