Abelardo de La Espriella, who in the polls appears as the leading contender of the conservative opposition ahead of Colombia’s presidential elections, faces a growing shadow of questions that go beyond campaign proposals and delve into the most controversial corners of his professional career as a criminal defense attorney.
In recent weeks, a series of complaints and media controversies have put on the table a debate that crosses the boundaries between professional ethics and the political responsibility of someone seeking to lead the country, just as he begins to rise in the polls and — for now — appears to be the only one capable of preventing a victory by the ruling party, led by Ivan Cepeda.
What for many was already a controversial past in the courts has now become an explicit line of attack by his political adversaries and a challenge to his credibility before an increasingly skeptical public opinion.
The questions are not coming only from the leftist opposition or from sectors critical of Colombia’s political establishment. The most resounding development is a “disciplinary complaint” filed by former head of the DMG financial scheme, David Murcia Guzman, against his former attorney before the Bogota Sectional Commission of Judicial Discipline.
The complaint, handled by attorney and fellow presidential candidate Sondra Macollins, sparks a debate that threatens to overshadow De La Espriella’s campaign at a time when consolidating his leadership on the right will determine his electoral viability.
Murky ties shadow De La Espriella’s campaign in Colombia
Abelardo de La Espriella is not an unfamiliar name in the halls of Colombian justice. His career of more than two decades has been marked by the defense of high-profile and highly controversial clients, ranging from figures linked to major financial scandals to individuals alleged to have ties to criminal structures of continental relevance.
Among the most talked-about cases is his defense of Colombian businessman based in Venezuela, Alex Saab, considered by U.S. authorities to be one of the main financial operators of Nicolas Maduro’s regime — currently detained — as well as his past representation of David Murcia Guzman, founder of DMG, one of the largest financial pyramid (Ponzi) schemes in Colombia’s recent history.
This track record, which in the courts can be seen as part of the traditional role of a criminal defense attorney — representing clients even in the most unpopular cases — has taken on notable political dimensions in the context of a polarized presidential campaign.
In Saab’s case, the defense De La Espriella undertook between 2013 and 2019 has been reexamined from various angles, especially after Saab’s rearrest, although the ties between De La Espriella and the Colombian businessman go no further than a professional attorney-client relationship.
In this regard, it is Murcia Guzman’s complaint that is causing discomfort within the right-wing electorate itself.
According to the document filed before the judicial disciplinary body, De La Espriella allegedly committed “serious violations of professional duties” during his representation of Murcia, including disloyalty, ethical breaches, and, above all, the alleged failure to return some 5 billion pesos (approximately US$1.4 million) in fees paid by the former DMG leader.
The complaint, formally submitted by Macollins — who, in addition to being an attorney, is running as an independent presidential candidate — describes a series of alleged irregularities, including the failure to present arguments at key moments during the 2008 arrest hearing, the improper handling of statements to the press that allegedly breached client confidentiality, and possible conflicts of interest related to De La Espriella’s closeness to powerful political figures at the time.
Colombia ya ha tenido suficientes “vivos” como el abogado @ABDELAESPRIELLA disfrazados de salvadores.
El país necesita carácter, no máscaras. https://t.co/75a0f6OIci— Sondra Macollins (@SondraMacol) February 11, 2026
What does the disciplinary complaint against De La Espriella say?
The document initially revealed by renowned journalist Daniel Coronell and reproduced by several media outlets in Colombia compiles a series of allegations by David Murcia Guzman against his former attorney.
The now-convicted businessman claims that his defense attorney failed to record alleged irregularities in the procedure surrounding his arrest in 2008.
As he stated, “On Nov. 19, 2008, I was arrested in the city of Panama by Colombian authorities and transferred to Colombia the following day, being placed at the disposal of the authorities on Nov. 20, 2008, the date on which my arrest was formally made to appear as if it had occurred on Colombian territory. … This circumstance constituted a serious irregularity, with possible implications regarding the legality of the arrest, due process, international judicial cooperation, and sovereignty, which was never alleged, questioned, or challenged by my defense attorney.”
Murcia also accuses his then-representative of having breached professional confidentiality by making public statements about his case: “The reported attorney made public statements in the media, affecting my honor, good name, and presumption of innocence, flagrantly breaking the duty of confidentiality, even after resigning from the defense and, as a consequence, placing an extra burden on my defense that weighed on the outcome of my conviction.”
Another point in the complaint refers to an alleged conflict of interest. “On March 16, 2009, the father of the reported attorney was appointed Public Notary by the National Government, a circumstance that, at the very least, raises a serious ethical question about the independence, loyalty, and good faith that should have governed the entrusted defense,” he indicated.
Regarding fees, he added: “At the first hearing, when the Prosecutor’s Office displayed an audio in which two of my employees were coordinating the delivery of a sum equivalent to 760,000,000 Colombian pesos [approximately US$207,000] for attorney Abelardo De La Espriella … my defense attorney abruptly, irresponsibly, and in a media-driven manner, publicly resigned from my defense, stating that he had been ‘deceived’ by me, without exhausting the minimum duties of loyalty, professional confidentiality, and diligence, and without returning the fees paid, nor rendering accounts, nor offering any legal explanation whatsoever. Such conduct left me in absolute defenselessness.”
Abelardo de La Espriella’s response
Following David Murcia Guzman’s complaint, the businessman and presidential hopeful denied the accusations and asserted that the alleged debt corresponds to the former majority shareholder of DMG.
“That’s an urban myth. They say De La Espriella kept US$472 million from DMG. I ask: What movie or what series are they watching? I mean, what attorney manages his client’s money? That’s a lot of movies and a lot of TV series. That is completely false,” he said in an interview with the local radio outlet La Kalle.
In addition to denying these claims, the current presidential hopeful also stated that “Mr. DMG still owed me about 700 million [approximately US$190,000], I think. That was about 18 years ago. The contract is there. And what I charged as an attorney, I invoiced and paid my respective taxes.”
Finally, he emphasized that he has received no sanctions in 22 years of professional practice: “In 22 years of professional practice, I do not have a single criminal sanction or a single disciplinary sanction. What does that mean? That I acted in accordance with the law,” he concluded.
The political challenge of a professional past
The disciplinary complaint not only calls the attorney’s professional conduct into question; it also opens a direct line of attack from the upper levels of the political spectrum, considering the weight De La Espriella holds in the polls as the main channel for opposition options in the May presidential elections.
The fact that a figure such as Sondra Macollins, also a presidential hopeful, is leading the processing of the disciplinary complaint adds symbolic and strategic weight to the case.
Macollins has made it clear that she intends to elevate the debate on ethics and professional responsibility, emphasizing that “politics cannot be an excuse to trample ethics.” This narrative resonates with broad sectors of public opinion who view with distrust the transition of controversial judicial figures into roles of national representation.
De La Espriella, for his part, has rejected the allegations and defended his record. He has stated that the disputed fees are legally documented, that the claims stem from misunderstandings or interested interpretations, and that in more than 20 years of professional practice, he has never been criminally or disciplinarily sanctioned.
For his allies, this is an attempt to discredit a candidate who, despite his confrontational style, has managed to capture a significant segment of the conservative electorate.
As the presidential campaign moves forward and the contest intensifies, the figure of Abelardo de La Espriella stands at a delicate point: The border between a controversial professional past and a possible high-risk political calling.
The shadows now cast over his career as a criminal defense attorney may define not only the narrative of his campaign but also the perception of millions of Colombians regarding ethics and suitability in public life.
In a country where judicial scandals have deeply marked politics over the past decades, De La Espriella’s story could become an emblematic case of how a professional past weighs — and heavily — in the presidential arena, and in Colombia, it can shadow a campaign.