Audit of Controls over Billings and Payments for Work by Panel Members in the Assigned Counsel Plan

Audit Report In Brief

We performed an audit of the reliability of the data in the Office of the Assigned Counsel Plan (ACP) computer systems.  The New York City Assigned Counsel Panel is an organization of court-approved attorneys who provide representation to indigent persons charged with crimes in the New York City courts.  The Panel is authorized by Article 18-B of the New York State County Law and funded by New York City.  The Office of the Assigned Counsel Plan reports to the Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator (OCJC), which is responsible for managing the Panel and a roster of investigators and other experts.  In order to be paid by the City for their work, Panel members and experts must submit vouchers to the court that detail the nature of the professional services rendered and the time expended.

In 2003, ACP developed an in-house Web-based application, the 18-B Web system, to improve the process of assigning attorneys while streamlining the voucher submission and processing, and to improve the system’s capacity to prevent fraudulent claims from being submitted and paid.  As of January 2007, the 18-B Web system handled 2 of the 12 types of vouchers that are processed by ACP.  The FoxPro system, in use since 1993, continued to process family court case vouchers, expert witness vouchers, and court reporter vouchers.  Since August 2007, all family court, court reporter, expert witness, and criminal court vouchers have been transferred from FoxPro system into the ACP Import Database and submitted for payment to the Financial Information Services Agency (FISA) through the 18-B Web system.

Audit Finding and Conclusions

The 18-B Web system has adequate controls in place to manage assignment and scheduling of attorneys while ensuring that the voucher payment process is generally reliable.  The 18-B Web system is designed to monitor and identify cases suspected of overbilling and double-billings.  It also produces attorney violation reports for administrators to take appropriate action.  However, it had instances of incorrect data and contained certain mandatory data fields that were blank, which could have an effect on the reliability of the 18-B Web system.

Conversely, the FoxPro system has inadequate data controls that make it possible for duplicate and inaccurate payments to occur.  FoxPro system does not have the functionality that permits its staff to enter specific data, such as details of specific dates and hours spent for services performed by the attorney.  Instead, FoxPro system contains only start date, end date, and total hours of services for each voucher submitted for payment.  Without detailed, specific, date and time information, it was not possible to ascertain whether attorneys overbilled or double-billed ACP for their services.  However, absent the basic controls, the potential exists for such activity to go undetected by ACP staff.

In addition, we found vouchers that exceeded the hours of services for single-day activity, and attorneys and expert witnesses who were paid above the standard rate and over the maximum limit.  These vouchers require attorneys and expert witnesses to submit documentation for approval.  Although FoxPro system has inadequate data control, 18-B Web system generates an error and warning message that indicates the vouchers need further review.  However, we found that ACP staff generally overrides this control and allows these vouchers to proceed without proper documentation.  For 73 of the 250 sampled vouchers we examined, ACP did not have the required judge’s approvals or attorney affirmations.  We, therefore, could not determine whether these vouchers had the proper approval before being paid.  In addition, we found vouchers in both FoxPro system and the 18-B Web system that were submitted more than 12 months after the case disposition, contrary to ACP guidelines.  Moreover,

The integration of FoxPro system into the 18-B Web system was behind schedule and a data purification plan has not been considered.

Bronx attorneys use the manual method of selecting arraignment assignments instead of using the 18-B Web scheduling calendar.

ACP does not have adequate procedures in place in both systems to ensure that security violations are recorded, documented, and reviewed in the both systems.

FoxPro system does not require users to change their password on a regular basis and does not have a fully tested disaster-recovery plan.

At the exit conference, OCJC officials stated that the integration of FoxPro system into the 18-B Web system was completed on June 1, 2008.  However, we found that although the process had been updated, the 18-B Web system still does not allow the user to enter specific dates and time information for each FoxPro voucher.  Also, ACP’s data migration procedure did not include a data purification process to ensure that all inadequate data is corrected prior to the migration.

Audit Recommendations

We make 17 recommendations, including that ACP:

Create a system control that ensures that future-date activities are not paid prior to the actual work being completed to prevent the potential for overbilling or double-billing.

Ensure that prior to payment, judges’ approvals and attorneys’ affirmations specifying the time and billable services for all cases exceeding the standard rates and maximum limits are received by ACP staff.

Develop a data purification plan that ensures that all inadequate data is corrected before it is transferred into the 18-B Web system.

Ensure that the 18-B Web system will provide all the functions that should be available to users, specifically, the capability to identify overbilling and overlapping vouchers.