Part of: Mace Federal Removal (Berg v. Bryant → D.S.C.) · House Ethics Committee Investigation of Rep. Nancy Mace (OCC Review 25-5681) · Berg v. Bryant (and Bryant's Third-Party Complaint against Mace) · Mace v. Bowman · Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg · Musgrave v. Mace (2:25-cv-01823-RMG) · Mace v. Bryant · Litigation Overview & Court-Filing Index
Pro Se: Nancy Mace has lost her lawyers again, this time in her own defamation suit against Eric Bowman
On July 6, 2026, Rep. Nancy Mace filed a Motion to Lift Stay in her own defamation case against Eric Bowman, and she filed it pro se, representing herself. On the coversheet she crossed out the entire 'Plaintiff's Attorney' block by hand, wrote 'N/A,' and wrote 'Pro Se.' The motion states she 'is now proceeding pro se in this matter, as reflected in the Notice filed June 30, 2026.' It is the second time in this cluster of cases she has gone without counsel. The three attorneys who filed and briefed the Bowman case for her, local counsel Andrew B. Moorman, Sr. and the two Washington lawyers she brought in pro hac vice, William M. Sullivan, Jr. and Alex G. Anderson, are no longer her counsel of record. A separate notice filed the same day names all three and asks the Clerk of Court to remove them. The complete eight-page motion, and the counsel-withdrawal notice, are reproduced below. Allegations on every side are contested and unproven; Bowman denies Mace's claims and has moved to dismiss, and Mace denies Bowman's.
On July 6, 2026, Rep. Nancy Mace, appearing pro se and without a lawyer, filed a Motion to Lift Stay of Proceedings in Congresswoman Nancy R. Mace v. Eric Bernard Bowman, the defamation suit she herself brought in the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Case No. 2025-CP-10-02733. The Clerk of Court stamped the motion FILED at 3:13 p.m. that day.
The most telling page is the first. On the state's standard Motion and Order coversheet, Mace filled in the caption in her own hand, then struck out the entire "Plaintiff's Attorney" block with a large X, wrote "N/A" across the attorney line, and wrote "Pro Se" in the margin. Three lines down, on the signature page, she signed her own name and dated it "7-6-26." The motion itself states plainly that she "is now proceeding pro se in this matter, as reflected in the Notice filed June 30, 2026."
It is the second time in this cluster of related Charleston County and federal cases that Mace has ended up representing herself. In January 2026 she went pro se in Berg v. Bryant, writing to the presiding judge that she had "relieved my previous counsel," calling the court a "Kangaroo Court," and removing the contempt matter to federal court (see that dispatch). She later re-retained counsel, a national firm and pro hac vice co-counsel, for the parallel Assignment Desk Works v. Berg subpoena fight. Now, in the Bowman matter, she is again on her own.
The lawyers who filed this case, and are no longer on it
Mace did not start this case alone. When she sued Eric Bowman in May 2025, she had a team. The record now shows all three of those attorneys off the case, and Mace standing in for herself:
- Andrew B. Moorman, Sr. of the Moorman Law Firm in Greenville, a former federal prosecutor, her local South Carolina counsel who filed the complaint.
- William M. Sullivan, Jr. of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman in Washington, D.C., admitted pro hac vice on July 10, 2025.
- Alex G. Anderson of Pillsbury, also admitted pro hac vice on July 10, 2025.
By Maceopedia's running count, these were the 11th, 17th, and 18th of the twenty-three attorneys who have represented Rep. Mace across at least six South Carolina and federal disputes since 2023. Two of them, Sullivan and Anderson, she brought in pro hac vice from a national law firm to pursue a private citizen who is appearing pro se and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, without paying the filing fee. As of this filing, even the imported firm is gone from the case and Mace is her own lawyer.
The change came fast. As recently as June 2, 2026, Mace was fully represented: Moorman and Sullivan personally signed the consent order that stayed the case, as "Attorneys for Plaintiff United States Representative Nancy R. Mace." Weeks later they were gone. A one-page Notice in the court file, stamped FILED July 6, 2026, names all three attorneys and asks the court to strike them:
The one-page notice removing Mace's counsel of record, stamped FILED July 6, 2026. It names Alex Anderson, William Sullivan, and Andrew Moorman, says she "shall proceed as pro se," and asks the Clerk to remove them. Under "CONSENT," Mace signs it herself.
"PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Alex Anderson, William Sullivan, and Andrew Moorman of Moorman Law Firm are no longer representing ... Rep. Mace ... in the above-captioned matter. Defendant shall proceed as pro se in the matter. Accordingly, it is hereby requested that the Clerk of Court remove the attorneys as counsel of record for Rep. Mace."
Under a heading marked "CONSENT," Mace signs off on it in her own name: "I, Nancy Ruth Mace, the plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, understand that upon entry of this pleading and subsequent order I will be unrepresented and will be proceeding pro se and that my pro se status will not serve as a basis for any continuance, stay or delay in the matter."
Two things are visible on the face of the one-page notice. Mace captions it a "Notice of Removal," the term ordinarily used for moving a case to federal court, not for a change of counsel. And it twice calls her the "Defendant" ("no longer representing Defendant ... Rep. Mace"; "Defendant shall proceed as pro se") even though she is the plaintiff who filed this suit, as the consent paragraph just below correctly states. (The motion, filed the same day, refers to a notice "filed June 30, 2026"; the counsel-withdrawal notice in the court file is stamped July 6.) The filings do not state why her counsel are no longer of record.
There is one more detail on the coversheet worth noting. In the block for the defendant's attorney, Mace lists Robert Merting of the Kim and Lahey Law Firm (Bar No. 13758, Greenville). On the face of her own filing, then, the once-pro-se defendant now has a lawyer, and the Congresswoman who filed the suit does not.
What the motion asks for
The suit has been frozen. On June 2, 2026, at the parties' joint request, the court entered a Consent Order staying the case for 120 days, finding a stay would "best serve the interests of all parties involved" because the parties were "adverse to each other in multiple forums on different facts." The consent order itself notes the parties are "adverse to each other in a pending case in federal court in the District of South Carolina," a separate proceeding the motion references but does not detail. Mace now asks the court to lift that stay so that Bowman's Motion to Dismiss, which she notes has been "fully briefed and ripe" since October 2025, can be decided and the case can "proceed to resolution on the merits." She argues the coordination concern behind the stay "has itself diminished" and that continued delay "prejudices Plaintiff" by prolonging the reputational harm she alleges.
None of the underlying allegations has been adjudicated. Mace alleges Bowman's posts on X were false and defamatory; Bowman denies her claims and has moved to dismiss, calling the suit "headline theater" and saying his posts were "based on documents, public records, witness testimony, and materials from her own staff." Nothing here treats any of those competing claims as true.
The filing, page by page
The complete eight-page filing is reproduced below from the public court record: a four-page state coversheet in Mace's hand, followed by her four-page signed motion. The original is hosted here (PDF, 8 pages).
Page 1, the coversheet. Mace hand-writes the caption, County of Charleston, Ninth Judicial Circuit, "Nancy Mace" as plaintiff, "Eric Bowman" as defendant, Case No. 2025CP1002733. She strikes out the whole "Plaintiff's Attorney" block with a large X, writes "N/A," and writes "Pro Se" beside it.
Page 2. In the defendant's-attorney block Mace lists Robert Merting (Kim and Lahey Law Firm, Bar No. 13758, Greenville). She marks "Form Motion, No Hearing Requested" and writes the Nature of Motion: "Lift Stay."
Page 3. "Written motion attached" is checked. Mace signs her own name, dates it "7-6-26," checks "Plaintiff(s)," and again writes "Pro Se." A $25 motion fee is marked paid, and the "Other" reason reads "Lift Stay."
Page 4. The "Judge's Section" and "Clerk's Verification," left blank; these are completed by the court, not the filer.
Page 5, the motion. The caption names "Congresswoman Nancy Ruth Mace, an Individual" as Plaintiff against "Eric Bernard Bowman," Case No. 2025CP1002733, and the Clerk's stamp reads filed JUL 6, 2026, 3:13 PM. The Introduction closes: "Plaintiff, now proceeding pro se, is prepared to move this matter forward."
Page 6. The "Relevant Background" recites the timeline: complaint filed about May 12, 2025; Bowman's motion to dismiss about July 9, 2025; fully briefed with Mace's opposition about October 6, 2025; the June 2, 2026 Consent Order for a 120-day stay. It states: "Plaintiff is now proceeding pro se in this matter, as reflected in the Notice filed June 30, 2026," and that "her pro se status will not serve as a basis for any continuance, stay, or delay."
Page 7, the Argument. Mace contends the stay's sole rationale, the parties being "adverse to each other in multiple forums on different facts," no longer holds, that "the federal action concerns different claims and facts that do not overlap" with the pending motion to dismiss, and that continued delay "prejudices Plaintiff."
Page 8, the Conclusion and signature. Mace asks the court to lift the stay and let Bowman's "fully-briefed Motion to Dismiss" be decided. She signs over the block "Rep. Nancy R. Mace / Pro Se," dated July 6, 2026.
The rest of the record on this case, and on Bowman
This dispatch is one entry in a longer file. The full case, its docket, the complaint, and the posts Mace attached as exhibits are catalogued on the case hub and in the earlier dispatches:
- Mace v. Bowman, the court-filing hub: the complaint, the exhibits, the Supreme Court order assigning the case to Judge Hocker, and the docket.
- Nancy Mace files her defamation complaint against Eric Bowman (May 12, 2025), how the case began.
- Eric Bowman, the profile of the defendant: the February 2025 floor speech, the April 2025 arrest, his denials, and his sworn affidavit in the Musgrave record.
- Earlier Bowman dispatches: "Rot in jail" (Sept. 19, 2025), "Not nearly enough" (Nov. 26, 2025), and the Instagram video (Dec. 27, 2025).
- Nancy Mace's Lawyers: A Timeline of Counsel, the full ledger of every attorney who has represented her since 2023.
Sources & related coverage
The filing itself: Plaintiff's Motion to Lift Stay of Proceedings (PDF, 8 pages), Congresswoman Nancy R. Mace v. Eric Bernard Bowman, Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Case No. 2025-CP-10-02733, electronically filed July 6, 2026, signed by Rep. Nancy R. Mace, pro se.
The counsel-withdrawal notice: Notice removing counsel of record (PDF, 1 page), naming Alex Anderson, William Sullivan, and Andrew Moorman as no longer representing Rep. Mace, stamped FILED July 6, 2026, signed by Rep. Nancy R. Mace, pro se.
Case No. 2025-CP-10-02733 is searchable on the South Carolina Judicial Branch Public Index at publicindex.sccourts.org by case number. All filings referenced above are public records available through that index.
Allegations in any pleading are the contentions of the filing party and are not findings of fact unless adopted by the court. Bowman denies Mace's claims and has moved to dismiss; Mace denies Bowman's counter-allegations. No final judgment has been entered.
See also
Read next
May 12, 2025 · DispatchMace's own defamation complaint puts her House-floor accusations, and the men's furious replies, into the public record
Suing Eric Bowman for defamation on May 12, 2025, Mace's complaint confirms she 'identified four individuals' from the House floor and reproduces, verbatim, the very accusations she calls false, including claims she steered VA contracts and 'destroy[ed] innocent men with zero evidence, zero charges.'
September 4, 2026 · DispatchNancy Mace loses in federal court: Bryant's suit accusing her of defamation and a blackmail conspiracy moves forward
Nancy Mace has lost in federal court. On September 4, 2026, U.S. District Judge Bruce H. Hendricks rejected her pro se bid to move the case out of state court, ruling her removal untimely 'by several measures,' and remanded Berg v. Bryant to the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas. That sends Patrick Bryant's third-party case against Mace forward in state court, a case that accuses her of defamation and of a civil conspiracy to hack his phone and blackmail him into signing over property. The Court affirmed the magistrate judge's recommendation with modifications, overruled Mace's objections, denied her motion for oral argument, and terminated her duplicate federal case as moot. The ruling is procedural: it does not reach the merits, and Mace's immunity defenses travel with the case. The order (ECF No. 36) is reproduced below. The allegations are disputed and unproven; Mace denies Bryant's claims, and Bryant denies Mace's.
- August 30, 2026 · Dispatch
The Record: What Nancy Mace Has Said About Being Sexually Assaulted, Whom She Told, and What Reached Authorities
July 20, 2026 · Dispatch"The one I'm already in": Mace's Senate withdrawal was a statement about the case, made under a gag order that has never been lifted
Rep. Nancy Mace's July 20, 2026 announcement that she will not run for the Senate was, in both the video and the written statement, an announcement about litigation. She said she was leaving the race 'not because I'm backing down from a fight, but because the one I'm already in matters right now,' told supporters she has 'unfinished business,' and dated that business to the day she 'stood on that House floor.' That was February 10, 2025, when she named four men and told them they had 'bought yourself a one-way ticket to hell.' Three of those men are parties to Berg v. Bryant, where a gag order barring comment on the case was extended indefinitely in December 2025 and, on the documentary record, has never been vacated, dissolved, or found expired. It has also never been enforced. Mace contends it is unconstitutional.
June 17, 2026 · DispatchA federal magistrate recommends sending the case Mace removed to federal court back to state court, finding her pro se removal 'untimely': 'it is RECOMMENDED that Bryant's Motion to Remand be GRANTED and that the case be REMANDED to state court.'
On June 17, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry issued a Report and Recommendation in the case Rep. Nancy Mace removed to federal court (Berg v. Bryant, docketed federally as No. 2:26-cv-00305-BHH-MHC), recommending that the case be remanded to state court. The recommendation is procedural, not a ruling on the truth of anyone's allegations: the magistrate found that Mace, who removed the case and briefed the remand motion pro se, was on notice the case was removable by December 12, 2025, so her January 29, 2026 removal of the entire case was untimely. A Report and Recommendation is not a final order; the parties have 14 days to object, and U.S. District Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks will make the final decision. The underlying allegations are disputed and contested; Mace denies Bryant's claims, and Bryant denies Mace's.
June 16, 2026 · DispatchCourt appoints former Judge Kristi Harrington as third-party neutral to sort the 11,000+ disputed files in Mace's Google Drive
On June 16, 2026, Judge Donald B. Hocker appointed Kristi Harrington, a Charleston attorney and former South Carolina Circuit Court judge, to serve as a 'third-party neutral' in Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg (Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, No. 2025-CP-10-2671), one of the cluster of cases tied to Rep. Nancy Mace and her former fiance, Patrick Bryant. Harrington's task is to review the more than 11,000 electronic files in what the court calls 'Mace's Google Drive,' files that both Mace and Bryant claim to own, and decide which, if any, must be turned over in discovery. The court split her fees between the two camps, warned the volume could make the process 'very cost-prohibitive,' and entered the order over Mace's objection. The order makes no finding on privilege, admissibility, ownership, or wrongdoing; the underlying allegations remain contested and unproven.