Part of: Musgrave v. Mace (2:25-cv-01823-RMG)
After 23 Lawyers, Nancy Mace Is Now Pro Se
After cycling through 23 different attorneys since 2023, Nancy Mace is now representing herself in court, including in the third-party complaint against her in the Berg litigation. This is the timeline, with every date and every case.
After cycling through 23 different attorneys since 2023, Nancy Mace is now representing herself in court.
According to court filings, Mace is currently proceeding pro se in the third-party complaint against her, Bryant v. Mace, inside the Berg v. Bryant litigation. Last week, in early September 2026, she filed on her own, asking the state court to stay that case while she pursues an appeal in the related federal court matter. After twenty-three lawyers, a sitting member of Congress is now writing and filing her own motions.
That is where a three-year revolving door of attorneys has ended up. The timeline reads like a carousel. Mace retained her first counsel in November 2023 for evidence preservation. Over the next two years she cycled through firm after firm: a mediation team in early 2024, the Phipps firm through that fall, House and federal counsel in 2025, then Moorman and Pillsbury, then still more firms into late 2025.
Then, on January 21, 2026, she fired them all. Mace filed pro se, representing herself, telling the court she had "relieved my previous counsel." Two days later she declared she had "stood in front of the judge, representing myself," and moved her case to federal court. She would not stay self-represented for long. By March 9, 2026 she was back with a major firm, Womble Bond Dickinson, alongside Oliver Maner, in the Assignment Desk Works v. Berg matter.
In a March 9 email later revealed in court, Mace wrote that "while I have thoroughly enjoyed being pro se, so much so it's made me want to go to law school," she could not attend an upcoming hearing. But the pro se chapter was not over. On June 30, 2026, she filed pro se yet again, this time in her own defamation case, Mace v. Bowman. And now she is pro se once more, in the Bryant third-party complaint against her.
The cases
- Mace v. Bryant, a partition and property matter
- Mace v. Bowman, a defamation case (pro se as of June 30, 2026)
- Musgrave v. Mace, a defamation case
- GLT2 v. Mace, a Rule 27 pre-suit petition
- Berg v. Bryant, where Mace first appeared pro se on January 21, 2026, and where she now proceeds pro se on the Bryant v. Mace third-party complaint against her
- Assignment Desk Works v. Berg, where Mace returned to counsel with Womble Bond Dickinson and Oliver Maner
Twenty-three lawyers. Multiple firms hired, relieved, and re-hired. Now representing herself again in the case against her. The complete attorney-by-attorney timeline, with every date and every case, is documented at Maceopedia with citations to the Post and Courier, Live5News, FITSNews, Fox Carolina, the South Carolina Judicial Branch Public Index, and PACER.
Sources: Maceopedia: Nancy Mace's lawyers | Post and Courier | Live5News | FITSNews
Read next
September 14, 2026 · DispatchMace Goes Pro Se, Moves to Pause State Case While Appealing Federal Ruling
After cycling through 23 attorneys since 2023, Rep. Nancy Mace is now representing herself pro se in the Bryant v. Mace state case. According to court filings, she filed motions last week asking the Charleston County court to stay proceedings while she appeals the federal remand order.
October 29, 2026 · DispatchNancy Mace Backed Ending Daylight Saving Time. Then She Didn't Show Up to Vote On It.
Nancy Mace was recorded Not Voting on the July 14 passage vote, and in her final year in Congress she missed a higher share of roll calls than all but two of the 426 members on the Clerk's record for every roll call. Through September 16 she was Not Voting on 103 of 314 roll calls, 32.8 percent. Two members missed more, and both told the public why. For July 13 and 14, and for most of her other missed votes, we found no reason from her. Her absence did not change the 308 to 117 result, and the Senate has not acted. This page sets the Clerk's record beside her posts, with every source.
October 27, 2026 · DispatchNancy Mace Keeps Clashing With Her Own Party, One Week Before Election Day
In a week the retiring congresswoman has taken on the Vice President's defense of an Ohio ad, her party's spending in South Carolina, her own committee and the Iran war. Some of it breaks with Trump's camp. Some does not.
October 23, 2026 · DispatchNancy Mace, Then and Now
What Nancy Mace said early in her career, set beside what she said later, on Donald Trump, the independent voice, Muslims and Ilhan Omar, gay and transgender Americans, and friends and enemies. Her own words, dated and attributed, with her explanations.
October 22, 2026 · DispatchNancy Mace is leaving Congress. Why, and what is next?
Nancy Mace recorded her goodbye to Congress at home on Oct. 22, 2026. She leaves the U.S. House on Jan. 3, 2027, and gives four reasons: a term-limit promise, press coverage she calls false, threats, and fatigue. Each is set beside the public record, from her 2020 win to fifth place in the June 9 governor primary, along with reasons she did not list: a House Ethics review with no announced result, and $176,206.28 in campaign payments to two law firms that the FEC filings describe only as legal fees, with no FEC investigation on the public record. Then the race for her seat and the media business she is building next.
October 21, 2026 · DispatchNancy Mace's campaign paid her lawsuit lawyers $176,206
FEC filings show Nancy Mace for Congress paid $176,206.28 in six months, from Dec. 22, 2025 to June 15, 2026, to two law firms: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP ($150,000 in three payments) and Moorman Law Firm LLC ($26,206.28). Those are the two firms on the signature block of the defamation suit Mace filed in May 2025 against Eric Bowman, which her complaint says she brought as a private citizen. The campaign had reported about $24,264 in legal fees in the seven years before, and it reported $0.00 in receipts for January through June 2026. Every filing line says only legal fees. No public record shows what the payments covered, and there is no finding of any violation and no FEC matter on the public record. This documentary, about fifteen minutes with a Short, lays out the filings, the court record and her own words.