William Christopher Swett, a former attorney with Motley Rice, faces serious legal repercussions after federal prosecutors accused him of orchestrating a substantial fraud scheme. According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Swett allegedly engaged in this fraudulent activity from 2018 until March 2024, siphoning at least $1.5 million through the creation of false companies, fabricated clients, and made-up claims.
In court documents, Assistant U.S. Attorney Emily Limehouse detailed that Swett purportedly devised a complex scheme involving deceptive representations and fraudulent pretexts to defraud both his law firm and clients. He allegedly established multiple legal service companies that appeared legitimate, submitting expenses for services that never took place and inflating invoices with false charges, all while failing to disclose his financial interests in these companies.
Moreover, Swett’s alleged misconduct extended to submitting reimbursement requests for fictitious clients and fabricating death and personal injury claims, which included falsified medical records. To mask his wrongdoing, he reportedly laundered funds through accounts he controlled.
Swett’s plea agreement encompasses eight felony counts, each of which could result in a maximum of 20 years in federal prison and fines reaching $250,000. His attorney, Nathan Williams, described Swett as having struggled with personal challenges that led him to make “poor and regretful decisions.” He expressed hope that the judge would consider a fuller account of the circumstances during sentencing.
Motley Rice responded to the charges with a cautious statement, indicating that they are monitoring the situation regarding the former employee’s criminal prosecution. The firm’s measured reaction highlights the gravity of the allegations against Swett, who, despite representing plaintiffs, is now embroiled in serious legal trouble for his alleged fraudulent activities.
This case serves as a stark reminder of the necessity for accountability within the legal profession, emphasizing that even those positioned to advocate for justice can fall into unethical practices.