Todd and Julie Chrisley, stars of Chrisley Knows Best, filed a legal malpractice lawsuit on June 9 against their former attorney, Anulewicz, and his firm. The couple claims that the attorney's incompetence, conflicts of interest, and inexperience in criminal defense directly resulted in their 2022 convictions for bank fraud, wire fraud, tax evasion,and conspiracy. Though President Donald Trump granted them full pardons last month, the Chrisleys are now seeking to hold their former counsel accountable for what the lawsuit describes as a "catastrophic, unforced error."

The $75,000 Food Truck Investment at the Center of the Conflict

According to the lawsuit obtained by Us Weekly and cited in the source report, the Chrisleys allege that Anulewicz exploited his position by steering them into a $75,000 investment in his brother-in-law's startup food truck business. The suit calls this a clear breach of fiduciary duty, arguing that the attorney prioritized personal financial gain over the couple's legal interests. This alleged side deal is a rare concrete example of how a lawyer's self-dealing can intertwine with a criminal defense, potentially undermining the trust necessary for a fair trial. The source article notes that the firm allowed Anulewicz to lead the defense because of the financial and publicity benefits of representing the high-profile couple, despite knowing he lacked meaningful criminal defense experience.

Why the Chrisleys Say Inexperience and Greed Sent Them to Prison

The lawsuit claims that the attorney's incompetence and conflicts of interest were not just unethical but directly causative: the Chrisleys maintain that a single timely motion by a competent attorney could have prevented their convictions. The source reports that the couple lost their television show and endoorsement deals, costing over $25 million in income, and spent millions more on appeals and post-conviction proceedings. The Chrisleys were sentenced in 2022 to lengthy prison terms, serving time before the pardon was issued. the suit frames the attorney's conduct as an exploitation of their trust for personal gain, leading to catastrophic reputational and financial harm. As the source puts it, the couple asserts they would never have been convicted otherwise.

The Pardon's Complicated Role in the Malpractice Case

President Trump's full pardon last month absolves the Chrisleys of the federal crimes for which they were convicted — but that legal forgiveness may complicate their malpractice claim. The pardon does not necessarily prove innocence; it could be seen as an act of clemency. The lawsuit must still demonstrate that the attorney's actions, not just the convictions themselves, caused the damages. Legal experts often note that a pardon can remove the conviction but not the underlying factual findings. The source article highlights this added complexity, as the Chrisleys now seek to hold their former counsel accountable for the loss of liberty and financiaal ruin — even though they are now free. The naming of the attorney, Anulewicz, as the defendant means the case will hinge on whether his alleged incompetence crossed the line from mere mistake to malpractice.

What the Attorney Has Said and the Key Questions Left Unanswered

Through a representative, Anulewicz indicated that he could not comment on the suit because his clients had not yet been served, but stated the matter "will be vigorously defended." The source report does not include any substantive rebuttal of the Chrisleys' allegations. Several open questions remain: What specific motions or strategies did the attorney fail to pursue? Was there documentation of his criminal defense experience — or lack thereof — before the trial? And crucially, how will the Chrisleys prove that a different lawyer would have produced a different outcome, especially given the strength of the government's case? These unanswered points will likely dominate the discovery phase of the lawsuit. The case underscores the critical importance of competent legal representation, as the source article notes, and the potentially dire consequences when that duty is breached.