Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Defender And Indigent Defense topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners refer forensic audit alleging indigent-defense overbilling to state oversight and post report online
Summary
After a Plant Moran billing analysis showed duplicated and chronologically impossible entries for an MIDC-assigned attorney, the board voted to forward the report to the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission, the attorney general, and the attorney grievance commission and to post an executive summary on the county website.
The Monroe County Board voted to refer a forensic billing analysis by accounting firm Plant Moran to state oversight bodies after the report identified apparent overbilling and billing practices the county described as "chronologically impossible." County legal counsel presented the findings and recommended sending the report to the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission (MIDC), the attorney general and the Attorney Grievance Commission, and sharing it with the county's 6th Amendment feasibility study.
Plant Moran's executive summary, as presented to the board by counsel, documented block-and-bundled billing, duplicative entries and days recorded with more than 24 hours of billable time. "This billing analysis shows...improper billing practices employed by the MIDC attorney here in Monroe County that resulted in overbilling," Goldsmith said. Commissioners described instances the report flagged as ‘‘chronologically impossible charges’’ and a pattern that could total hundreds of thousands of dollars; the presentation noted specific duplicated entries and grouping patterns, but the report did not calculate a final recoverable dollar amount.
Board action: Commissioner Levens moved to refer the report to MIDC, the attorney general, the attorney grievance commission and the county's 6th Amendment feasibility study and to place the report on the county website; the motion carried on roll call. Commissioners emphasized the distinction between the report's findings about billing practices and any judgment about the sufficiency of legal work.
Questions from commissioners included whether the forensic review could produce a recoverable dollar figure and how the county will prevent future overbilling. County staff said the forensic scope did not compute a final reimbursement amount and that the report's purpose was pattern analysis and referral to appropriate oversight bodies. Commissioner Levens said the motion was meant to "stop the hemorrhaging" of county funds while oversight agencies investigate.
What's next: Agencies receiving the report may open inquiries or disciplinary reviews; the county pledged to post the report and to pursue internal process changes to vet invoices more closely.
