Todd and Julie Chrisley allege that their former defense attorney, Christopher S. Anulewicz, and his former firm, Balch & Bingham LLP, mishandled parts of their federal criminal defense. The claims are part of a civil malpractice lawsuit, not a judicial finding that misconduct occurred. As of the latest confirmed report, dated September 4, 2026, the Chrisleys had asked a Georgia federal judge to reject the defendants’ effort to dismiss the suit; no ruling on that request was confirmed.
What misconduct do Todd and Julie Chrisley allege?
The central allegation concerns evidence gathered after a warrantless search of a warehouse by the Georgia Department of Revenue. According to the Chrisleys’ complaint, a judge suppressed physical documents seized in that search, but Anulewicz failed to seek suppression of what they describe as derivative evidence, including emails, bank records and other financial documents. The complaint says the federal investigation began with information from the seized materials and that agents later obtained warrants for records from the Chrisleys’ email accounts. These are the plaintiffs’ allegations about the investigation and their lawyer’s performance, not findings about causation or the validity of later warrants.
The Associated Press also reported that the complaint accuses Anulewicz of having “no meaningful defense experience” and alleges that Balch & Bingham let him lead the defense for publicity and business reasons. The suit further alleges that, while representing the couple, he steered them into a $75,000 investment in a startup food-truck business connected to his brother-in-law. Those allegations have not been established in the materials reviewed.
What does the malpractice lawsuit seek?
The Chrisleys seek compensatory damages “in excess of $25 million,” along with legal costs and attorney fees, according to the Associated Press’s June 8, 2026 report. The requested damages are the couple’s case-specific demand, not an amount awarded by a court.
#1 Best Overall
- One of the most trusted resources on health care law, Legal Aspects of Health Care Administration is now available in a new Fourteenth Edition.
- Written in a comprehensible and engaging manner, this indispensable text will carefully guide your students through the complex maze of the legal system and will serve them throughout their professional lives.
- With over 40 years of experience as an administrator, consultant, and surveyor across 650 hospitals, author George D. Pozgar provides a uniquely accessible tool for grasping the legal complexities of health care through an array or real-life case studies, precedent-making court cases, and key statistical data.
What has the former lawyer’s side said?
In the Associated Press’s initial June 2026 coverage, Patrick T. O’Connor, identified as counsel for Balch & Bingham and Anulewicz, said he could not comment because his clients had not yet been served, but that “it will be vigorously defended.” That statement was reported at the outset of the case; it should not be read as a complete account of the defendants’ current position.
Has a judge ruled on the malpractice lawsuit?
No ruling on the dismissal request was confirmed in the latest located report. Law360 reported on September 4, 2026, that Todd and Julie had asked the judge to reject the former attorneys’ bid to dismiss the case. A docket mirror’s listing was last retrieved on June 19, 2026, before that report, and notes that newer entries may be available through PACER. The available information therefore establishes the Chrisleys’ opposition to dismissal as of September 4, not the judge’s decision.
Rank #2
- Used Book in Good Condition
How is the civil case different from the criminal appeal?
The malpractice suit does not reopen or reverse the federal convictions. It is a separate civil case about the former defense team’s alleged performance. The criminal appeal, by contrast, reviewed issues arising from the prosecution and trial, including a challenge concerning allegedly false testimony by an IRS officer.
On June 21, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court on the appealed issues except for Julie Chrisley’s loss calculation. The panel rejected the claim that the IRS officer’s allegedly false testimony warranted a new trial or evidentiary hearing. It vacated Julie’s sentence on the loss amount and remanded for findings and recalculation of loss, restitution and forfeiture. The court summarized its decision: “After careful consideration, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the district court on all issues except for the loss amount attributed to Julie.”
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
The Eleventh Circuit’s opinion recounts that the jury convicted Todd and Julie in 2022 of offenses including bank fraud and tax evasion. At the original sentencing, Todd received 144 months and Julie 84 months; the later remand concerned Julie’s loss-related calculations and resentencing. The appellate decision addressed the criminal appeal, not the malpractice claims against Anulewicz or Balch & Bingham.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Key dates in the case
- June 21, 2024: The Eleventh Circuit issued its criminal-appeal decision, affirming on the appealed issues except Julie’s loss calculation, which it remanded.
- June 5, 2026: Todd and Julie Chrisley filed the civil malpractice case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The defendants are Balch & Bingham LLP and Christopher S. Anulewicz; the docket identifies the claim as diversity legal malpractice.
- June 16, 2026: The docket mirror lists an amended complaint with a jury demand.
- September 4, 2026: Law360 reported that the Chrisleys opposed the defendants’ effort to dismiss the suit. No later ruling was confirmed.
Sources
- Associated Press, June 8, 2026, for the complaint allegations, requested damages and initial response attributed to Patrick T. O’Connor.
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, June 21, 2024, for the criminal appeal’s disposition and sentencing background.
- Justia docket mirror, for the civil case parties and entries through its June 19, 2026 retrieval date; the mirror says newer entries may be available through PACER.
- Law360, September 4, 2026, for the report that the Chrisleys asked the judge to reject the dismissal bid.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
