California law firm repays excess fees to Nevada
Headline News
[##_1L|1207426755.jpg|width="180" height="128" alt=""|_##]A Sacramento, Calif., law firm accused of collecting nearly $100,000 in excess fees for advice relating to a college savings program in Nevada has repaid the money to the state. The Orrick firm sent a check for $95,862 along with a letter dated July 3 disputing the findings by Nevada legislative auditors of the College Savings Plans of Nevada. Advertisement Auditors concluded Orrick was paid $428 per hour for services in 2001-02, although a contract specified a $225 per hour limit, which resulted in nearly $96,000 in excess funds.
“We believe the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) reached erroneous conclusions that could have been corrected by seeking clarification from Orrick before LCB published its audit report,” said the letter from James Houpt.
But the letter went on to say that the law firm considers Nevada to be a valuable client, and the firm's “intent is not to risk that relationship.”
State Treasurer Kate Marshall said the check already has been deposited in a state bank account.
“They respectfully disagreed with the audit, but they also felt it was the right decision for them to make the overpayment identified in the audit,” Marshall told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “The state of Nevada is a little over $95,000 better off for it.”
As a result of the audit of the college savings program while under the review of then-Treasurer Brian Krolicki, Marshall sent a letter to the firm seeking a response.
Orrick had served as bond counsel to the state at the time the services were rendered for the program. The contract allowed the firm to provide legal services to other state agencies as well. The firm currently does not have any contract to serve as bond counsel with the state.
The treasurer's office is awaiting a response from another firm that did business with the state for the college savings program on a separate issue raised in the audit.
A Georgia consulting firm, GIF Services, was overpaid $300,000, according to the audit released in May.
The audit was sought by legislators after Marshall said in March that it appeared funds for the program were diverted for unauthorized legal expenditures and marketing costs.
The audit also raised the issue of whether Krolicki broke state law by not depositing $6 million in state-earned fees into the state treasury. The audit has been turned over to the attorney general's office for an investigation.
Krolocki, now lieutenant governor, has said he broke no laws in his management of the program during his eight years as treasurer.
The program was established by the 2001 Legislature to allow parents to invest money in mutual funds to build up college funds for their children.
None of the money that parents invested is missing or ended up in an improper account, according to the audit.
Related listings
-
$20 Million Trial Involving Iverson Goes to Jury
Headline News 07/07/2007[##_1L|1193016994.jpg|width="120" height="80" alt=""|_##]A federal jury began deliberations Thursday in a $20 million lawsuit against Denver Nuggets guard Allen Iverson over a 2005 nightclub fight that two patrons say was sparked by Iverson's entoura...
-
Carbondale law firm celebrates anniversary
Headline News 07/07/2007July marks the 30th anniversary for a Carbondale law firm that has technically been in existence for the last 99 years. Feirich/Mager/Green/Ryan and Associates, 2001 W. Main St. near the Westtown Mall in Murdale, established its current banner in 197...
-
Law firm boosts cellular signal in new offices
Headline News 07/06/2007Cellular signals often have difficulty penetrating massive steel high-rise buildings. But in Washington's downtown, matters are worse because of height restrictions that force builders to add multiple basement floors. One law firm knew that a new hea...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.