« Move Over, FAPIIS--POGO Freshens Up Its Contractor Misconduct Database | Main | Morning Smoke: A Tale of FOIA Frustration with DHS »

Sep 29, 2011



these fees and shenanigans by law firms are outrageous, but the government should bill every nickel to the banks which had to be
supervised because they were and are bad actors with tarp $$$$$$.
any needed forensic audit should also be billed to the banks who received
largess and spit in the faces of all americans.

Niko Borosky

I would head on down to the DC Bar Asson. For $25, you can file a complaint. Treasury could easily claim that failure to document activity and expenses is unprofessional, not to mention suspicious. The peers who would resolve the complaint would clearly force it to document expenses and fees. Those that could not stand the light of day could be easily disallowed. The contract does not matter. The complaint does. Case closed, eh?

Marcelle Green

Unfortunately, the Congressional Oversight's Panel's comment that Treasury's precedures “follow well-established norms for monitoring contract performance” is probably true: this IS the way the Treasury Department spends our money.

Dr. Harry J. Maue

There always seems to be a lot of press regarding legal fees and never forget expenses. Expenses have triggered more legal audits then legal fees. The reason is if you find questionable expenses there seems to be a direct correlation with unreasonable legal fees. The bottom line to all this is simply have all the fees and expenses audited by an experienced forensic legal auditing company. Then the matter can be put to rest and hopefully all parties can be satisfied with the audit findings. Legal auditing has been around for over 26 years and it still amazes me that it's these professional services are not utilized near enough. Every intitution involving either a operational or financial transaction is subject to some kind of oversight. The exception to that is when it comes to legal services it seems only the most well managed companies seem to get it and subject the law firms to some type of legal bill review. These reviews can be as simple as an electronic process which primarily just eliminates paper but does not produce any type of substantive results. They can give you various metrics and reports but really no potential savings. However savings should not be the primary motivation behind a legal audit. If a company wants to really do something about controlling legal fees and expenses there is only one way and that is by retaining the services of a professional legal auditing company. Respectfully submitted, Dr. Harry J. Maue

Dr. Harry J. Maue

In order to maintain objectivity it may behove the Inspector General to retain the services of an independent forensic legal auditing company. This would provide a third party independent objector report that could act to resolve any potential billing ill regularities that are non compliant will billing guidelines, ABA billing protocols and adjudicated cases. If there are billing violations uncovered and the matter cannot be settled then the audit findings can be arbitrated or litigated. But in any case an outside auditing company has to be retained so that independence can be maintained and finger pointing can possible be negated. The bottom line is that it' s just the right thing to do. Respectfully submitted, Dr. Harry J. Maue

The comments to this entry are closed.