MAGA Attorney General Candidate Has Soft Spot for Shady Corporations
Representative Dan Bishop promises to “protect North Carolina.” Will he?
Representative Dan Bishop, a far-right Republican from North Carolina who is currently campaigning to be the state’s attorney general, is portraying himself as a champion for the little guy. Just this week, he promised a “reckoning” against the “gangster government.”
But Bishop’s track record shows that he doesn’t just protect the little guy. While he won consumer protection victories over his 23-year career, he also has worked with powerful organizations accused of taking advantage of much weaker individuals. Case in point: his “gangster government” comment wasn’t about sticking up for citizens’ rights against the federal government, but about billionaire Donald Trump being found guilty of felony business fraud by a jury of his peers.
Bishop also doubled down on his position that the trial was “rigged” with a wildly offensive comment.
“They go into a place where they know the fight is unfair. It’s as bad as it was in Alabama in 1950 if a person happened to be Black in order to get justice, and that’s what they did in New York. So, it was fundamentally rigged,” he said on an episode of The Pete Kaliner Show.
Bishop, who has only been a congressman since 2023, is seeking to replace his home state’s Democratic Attorney General Josh Stein. (Stein is running for governor against Hitler-quoting Republican Mark Robinson.) Bishop must defeat his congressional colleague, Democratic Representative Jeff Jackson, a former prosecutor.
While Bishop’s own website touts his experience as a “tenacious litigator, handling complex commercial cases,” he has never served as a public prosecutor. Online records—only made available in recent months as North Carolina switches to an online court filing system—show that while working as an attorney, the Republican lawmaker worked multiple times with organizations accused of questionable business practices.
One of the most egregious cases began in 2002, when Bishop defended Fischer-Schindler, LLC, which was accused of stealing at least $1 million from plaintiff Larry Black through an invented investment scheme. In addition to F&S, Bishop also defended James Schindler. In court documents, Black’s attorney described the alleged blatant theft: “To say Defendants engaged in an elaborate ‘Ponzi’ scheme is probably an insult to the late Mr. Ponzi.”
Ultimately, Bishop’s clients were voluntarily dismissed in this case, which simply means the plaintiff chose to drop those defendants for an unspecified reason. The estate of Doss Fischer—who is listed in the court documents as an “agent, manager or member of F&S”—was ordered to pay Black $1 million plus interest.
Also in 2002, Bishop also defended a company that was accused of racial discrimination toward one of its employees, allegedly denying her promotions due to her race. The parties eventually reached a private settlement, ending the case.
In 2009, Bishop represented Charlotte Hanson, who, with her husband Sidney, was accused of operating a Ponzi scheme that targeted retirement-age people, raising around $32.5 million from approximately 500 clients. While the Hansons had promised high returns on supposed investments, court documents alleged that they instead used the money to fund a lavish lifestyle for themselves of resort vacations and private plane rentals, as well as making payments to agents who supplied their scheme with new customers interested in purchasing so-called “private loan agreements.”
Bishop provided legal counsel to Charlotte Hanson to ensure she cooperated with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, after which he withdrew from the case. She was ultimately removed as a defendant.
Two years later, a district court judge ordered Sidney to pay $23 million in restitution, plus interest, to his victims, as well as a $1.2 million fine to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. He was sentenced to 22 years in federal prison.
In 2011, Bishop helped defend Fuzion Investment Capital (FIC), which was accused of wrongfully terminating an employee, Jeffrey Stec, who was “rendered destitute” by the firing, according to the lawsuit. Stec alleged that after he sold his fitness center company to FIC as part of a bankruptcy deal, with FIC promising that he would be able to buy the company back, FIC instead underpaid him to the tune of $80,000 in owed wages and fired him and terminated his management rights without proper cause—canceling his family’s health insurance in the process. Stec voluntarily dismissed his case 29 days after filing it.*
That year, Bishop also was involved in a lawsuit against a group of businessmen who were accused of engaging in an “active conspiracy” to defraud a 78-year-old Mary Rudolph, who was recovering from heart surgery, according to the lawsuit.
Bishop represented two of the businessmen involved in the case, as well as the company Rudolph co-owned, Beacon Independent Living LLC, in a counterclaim against Rudolph. Bishop’s firm withdrew less than three months after taking on the case, and he did not defend the plaintiff’s business partner or the person who took control of the business while the case played out. After Bishop’s firm withdrew, parties agreed to dismiss the case entirely.
The New Republic contacted Bishop’s office for comment on his legal history, but he did not respond by time of publication.
It’s possible that Bishop’s career is merely the result of meeting the obligation of a good lawyer and representing all manner of clients. But it could also be an indication of the people he actually intends to protect if elected attorney general. And if that’s the case, then North Carolinians will pay the highest cost.
State attorneys general have a tremendous influence over how laws are implemented and prosecuted. And over the past two years, an increasing number of attorneys generals have wielded outsized influence and power, protecting the privileged while pushing through cruel regulations that target some of the most vulnerable communities.
* This article originally misstated the status of Jeffrey R. Stec v. Fuzion Investment Capital, LLC, et al., which was dismissed in March 2011. This article has also been updated for clarity.