Prosecutors Move To Disqualify Comey Lawyer Over 2017 Leak

Federal prosecutors have asked a judge to consider disqualifying James Comey’s lead attorney before the case even reaches a jury. The move centers on allegations that the lawyer’s ties to a 2017 memo leak create a conflict that could undermine Comey’s defense.

Comey faces two criminal counts stemming from his 2020 Senate testimony: making false statements and obstruction of justice. Those charges, brought by a grand jury in September 2025, set a trial date for early January 2026 in Alexandria, Virginia.

The controversy traces back to 2017, when memos attributed to Comey were disclosed to the press and sparked debates about leaks, classification and the boundaries of government transparency. That episode has been revisited by prosecutors as they examine whether communications from that period are relevant to the current prosecution.

In 2020 Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the FBI’s handling of probes related to alleged Russian contacts with then-President Donald Trump. Prosecutors say overlap between those sessions and later communications raises questions about who knew what and when.

On a recent Sunday prosecutors filed a motion targeting Patrick Fitzgerald, Comey’s lead counsel, suggesting Fitzgerald’s possible involvement in the 2017 leak could create a disqualifying conflict. The filing asks the court to put procedures in place to separate potentially protected material from the government’s review.

The request was submitted by U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan and her team and directed to U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff. Prosecutors pressed for a so-called filter protocol to be adopted quickly so any privileged or protected material can be properly handled before motions over counsel’s status are litigated.

They contend that communications and materials from the 2017 episode could be important to both sides and that a fast review will prevent last-minute surprises. Swift review is pitched as a way to keep the trial schedule on track and limit disruption to the case.

“The evidence for filter review could also inform a potential conflict and disqualification issue for the current lead defense counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald,” prosecutors stated in court documents. That sentence frames the filing as more than procedure; it’s a direct challenge to the integrity of the defense team.

Prosecutors point to findings in a Justice Department inspector general report that criticized Comey’s handling of his memos years ago. Horowitz concluded that Comey “violated Department or FBI policy, or the terms of Comey’s FBI Employment Agreement,” as detailed in the report, and prosecutors now say that history shapes how they view current materials.

At the time the inspector general released its findings the Department opted not to bring charges related to the memo disclosures, but the new filing argues the underlying communications still matter. If the evidence shows Fitzgerald played a role in leaking or in related exchanges, that could justify disqualification depending on what the filter review turns up.

The government emphasizes that the review should cover only non-privileged material so legitimate attorney-client communications remain protected. Comey’s defense team is expected to respond with its own motions soon, likely contesting the indictment and pushing back on disqualification efforts.

For Republicans watching, this is a test of whether the rule of law applies to powerful figures and their counsel and whether prosecutors will move aggressively when conflicts emerge. The coming weeks promise a legal tug-of-war that could reshape pretrial posture well before jurors are ever seated.