The decision by the attorney general of New York, Letitia James, to use her public office — and taxpayer funds — to defend herself from a criminal investigation undertaken by the Department of Justice could backfire on her and the New Yorkers who appear headed to foot the bill. 

The investigation is now in the purview of the Department of Justice, which intends to move forward with a criminal referral issued by the Federal Housing Finance Agency director, Bill Pulte, heir to a home construction fortune. The director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Kash Patel, tells Fox News that the case is “being handled by our professional pros who are subject-matter experts, reporting directly” to him.

The allegations against Ms. James are unrelated to her professional duties. Instead, she is accused of three distinct instances of mortgage fraud. The first is the listing of a modest house in Norfolk, Virginia, as her primary home even though she is legally required to live in New York. The second is the listing of her father as her husband to secure better loan terms. Finally, she is accused of lying about the number of units at another property she owns, a multi-family building in Brooklyn. 

A spokesman for the New York Attorney General’s Office — a state employee — responded to those allegations by declaring that Ms. James “will not be intimidated by bullies — no matter who they are.” A more fulsome response was provided in a letter written by Ms. James’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell. He called the accusations “threadbare” and components of a “revenge tour” built on “cherry-picked” evidence. 

Mr. Lowell’s list of clients includes Hunter Biden, Senator Edwards, a former presidential candidate, and Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump. Ms. James’s office contends that she intends to tap into a private legal defense fund to pay his fees, but CNN reports that state funds will also be used to cover expenses. Ms. James could also draw on the legal work of the attorneys in her office. All of this could prompt calls from her Republican foes for investigation and testimony.  

Mr. Lowell concedes that his client was “mistaken” with respect to how she filled out some forms relating to the properties at issue, and that the Norfolk property listed as her “primary” residence was actually intended for her niece. Additional documents, he argues, will bear out that intention. Convicting Ms. James would require persuading a jury of her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That could prove challenging in New York, but charges could be handed up in Virginia.

If the government does secure an indictment against Ms. James, its effort to build a case against New York’s top law enforcement official could be aided by her decision to blur the line between her private legal jeopardy and her public office. One former federal prosecutor, Elie Honig, calls her mingling of the private and public “dreadful” because it means that her colleagues could be called as witnesses against her. 

Ms. James’s interactions with, say, Mr. Lowell would be protected under attorney-client privilege, one of the most ancient prerogatives of the common law. There would be no such protection, though, for any evidence relating to the case that could be gleaned from Ms. James’s colleagues, even if they are lawyers. Her press shop would also be exposed if she had any conversations with them about the accusations against her. 

Ms. James’s legal jeopardy has likely surfaced as the result of her decision to tangle with Mr. Trump. She secured a civil fraud verdict against the president, his two adult sons, and his business. That penalty is now more than $500 million, and also includes a ban on conducting business in New York and the appointment of an independent chaperone.  

Mr. Trump, who had an antagonistic relationship with the presiding judge, Arthur Engoron, appealed that verdict. During oral arguments the appellate court appeared sympathetic to Mr. Trump’s arguments for reversal, venturing that the penalty imposed by Judge Engoron was “immense” and “troubling.” The decisions as to whether that ruling stands could be handed down any day. 

The charges for which Mr. Trump was found liable — exaggerating property values in order to get better loan terms — are similar to the fraud offenses for which Ms. James is currently being probed. Like the Fulton County district attorney, Fani Willis, who also brought charges against Mr. Trump, Ms. James has found her personal conduct under investigation. 

Neither Mr. Lowell nor Ms. James responded to requests for comment before this article went to press.