Bridget M. Fitzpatrick is a seasoned legal professional and currently serves as the Acting United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. She assumed this position on January 16, 2025, following the resignation of Matthew M. Graves. With over 15 years of experience in federal law enforcement, Fitzpatrick has built a career marked by diligence, integrity, and a commitment to justice.
Fitzpatrick has been instrumental in numerous high-profile cases during her tenure at the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Her expertise lies in complex legal matters, including fraud, corruption, and national security cases. As the Principal Assistant U.S. Attorney before her current role, she provided strategic leadership and oversight to one of the busiest federal districts in the nation, ensuring the effective prosecution of significant cases.
Known for her analytical acumen and unwavering professionalism, Fitzpatrick has earned the respect of her peers and colleagues. Her leadership during this transitional period for the U.S. Attorney’s Office underscores her ability to navigate challenging legal landscapes while upholding the rule of law.
In her role as Acting U.S. Attorney, Fitzpatrick continues to focus on maintaining public trust, safeguarding the principles of justice, and addressing the critical legal issues that affect the District of Columbia and the nation.
The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia is unique among U.S. Attorney’s Offices in the size and scope of its work. It serves as both the local and the federal prosecutor for the nation’s capital. On the local side, these prosecutions extend from misdemeanor drug possession cases to murders. On the federal side, these prosecutions extend from child pornography to gangs to financial fraud to terrorism. In both roles, the Office is committed to being responsive and accountable to the citizens of the District of Columbia. The Office also enforces the law and defends the interests of the United States in civil suits brought in the district. Its location in the seat of the federal government gives it responsibility for many cases of national importance, including far-reaching challenges to federal policies and employment practices. In all things, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia is committed to ensuring the fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.
The Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia is unique among the 94 United States Attorney Offices across the nation by virtue of its size and its varied responsibilities. It is the largest United States Attorney’s Office with over 330 Assistant United States Attorneys and over 330 support personnel. The size of this Office is the result of the breadth of our responsibility for criminal law enforcement and our location in the nation’s capital. We are responsible not only for the prosecution of all federal crimes, but also for the prosecution of all serious local crime committed by adults in the District of Columbia. In addition, we represent the United States and its departments and agencies in civil proceedings filed in federal court in the District of Columbia. As the principal prosecutor for all criminal offenses in this jurisdiction, and as the principal litigator for the United States in the nation’s capital, this Office offers extensive litigation experience before over 100 judges in the federal and local courts and unique opportunities for important public service. This significant responsibility of the public prosecutor was aptly described by Justice Sutherland in Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935):
The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor — indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.