Tweet
Government of Jamaica billed by lawyers - State attorneys charge central government for representation
published: Friday | September 14, 2007
Tyrone Reid, Enterprise Reporter
Lawyers from the Attorney-General's chambers have apparently breached established staff orders by billing at least one central government entity for legal services.
It is unclear whether the illegitimate practice is widespread or whether it has ceased, but the evidence indicates that several state attorneys have billed for legal representation provided to central government, albeit being constitutionally mandated to do so.
Documents gleaned by our news team show that the practice certainly continued up to at least 2002, resulting in the head of one government department writing a scathing letter disputing the entitlement of the Attorney-General's chambers to bill another central government entity for legal services rendered. The letter made the point that central-government departments did not have an option as to the attorneys to be used in legal matters and, in the circumstances, should not be billed for legal services rendered, nor compelled to pay.
In 2001, the Attorney-General's Department billed the Tax Administration Services Department (TASD) close to $700,000 in honoraria for legal representation it provided in four court cases. (An honorarium is a payment for professional services that are rendered far below the real value or cost.)
Among other things, the documents detailed costs of trials, per-hour preparation costs, and the names of the attorneys who were submitting the claims for payments.
Solicitor General Michael Hylton was among the attorneys who worked and charged the TASD an honorarium.
In a letter written by Hylton in April 2001 to the commissioner of the TASD, Hylton confirmed that he had resiled from an earlier proposal to charge a 'fee' for legal representation provided in several cases. This change in position, however, only came about after Hylton's request for payment had ruffled several feathers at the department and resulted in a stand-off of sorts. In the letter, Hylton referred to the compromise that had been arrived at, in consultation with a senior official at the Department, and stated, "... it was agreed that members of the Department would handle the four (4) matters which we discussed, but would do so on the basis of an 'honorarium', and not a 'fee basis' as had been proposed in my earlier letter."
Last month, an article was published questioning the fee arrangements in the Attorney General's Chamber. However, Mr. Hylton quickly dismissed the claims of questionable fee arrangements by pointing out that the entities referred to in the article were statutory bodies and government companies. Checks with the Staff Orders confirmed Mr. Hylton's claim that statutory bodies and government companies can be charged.
At that time, Mr. Hylton said central government entities should not be charged, as the lawyers from the Attorney General's Department were already paid to represent such bodies.
"Members of the Chamber are constitutionally mandated (and paid) to provide legal services to the departments and ministries of central government and the Chamber does not render invoices for doing so," read a section of Mr. Hylton's response to the article.
Meris Haughton, director of Public Relations at the TASD, toldour news team that her department is a central government entity and that the Solicitor-General had in fact requested remuneration for work done by himself and other lawyers in the Attorney-General's Chamber.
"It is not a government company. It is one of five departments that report directly to the Director-General of Tax Administration, who reports to the Financial Secretary at the Ministry of Finance," she explained. However, she could not say if any payments were made.
"We cannot find any record that an actual payment was made (but) there is a commitment requisition for an amount during the period 2001. Our records, however, show that subsequent to that no such request has come from the Attorney-General for any payment nor has any payment been forwarded to the Attorney-General."
She added: "Any such payment would ultimately rest with the Ministry of Finance, which handles our account."
Dr. Carlton Davis, Cabinet Secretary, also corroborated that entities that fall within the ambit of central government should not be charged.
"All I will say is that the Staff Orders lay out the rules of engagement to deal with these thingsÉ If there is any deviation, speak to the two heads and speak to them directly," he added.
Patrick Foster, Deputy Solicitor-General told The Gleaner that he was not in a position to respond to the issue. However, he said, Mr. Hylton, who is overseas on official business, plans to issue a response by today.
published: Friday | September 14, 2007
Tyrone Reid, Enterprise Reporter
Lawyers from the Attorney-General's chambers have apparently breached established staff orders by billing at least one central government entity for legal services.
It is unclear whether the illegitimate practice is widespread or whether it has ceased, but the evidence indicates that several state attorneys have billed for legal representation provided to central government, albeit being constitutionally mandated to do so.
Documents gleaned by our news team show that the practice certainly continued up to at least 2002, resulting in the head of one government department writing a scathing letter disputing the entitlement of the Attorney-General's chambers to bill another central government entity for legal services rendered. The letter made the point that central-government departments did not have an option as to the attorneys to be used in legal matters and, in the circumstances, should not be billed for legal services rendered, nor compelled to pay.
In 2001, the Attorney-General's Department billed the Tax Administration Services Department (TASD) close to $700,000 in honoraria for legal representation it provided in four court cases. (An honorarium is a payment for professional services that are rendered far below the real value or cost.)
Among other things, the documents detailed costs of trials, per-hour preparation costs, and the names of the attorneys who were submitting the claims for payments.
Solicitor General Michael Hylton was among the attorneys who worked and charged the TASD an honorarium.
In a letter written by Hylton in April 2001 to the commissioner of the TASD, Hylton confirmed that he had resiled from an earlier proposal to charge a 'fee' for legal representation provided in several cases. This change in position, however, only came about after Hylton's request for payment had ruffled several feathers at the department and resulted in a stand-off of sorts. In the letter, Hylton referred to the compromise that had been arrived at, in consultation with a senior official at the Department, and stated, "... it was agreed that members of the Department would handle the four (4) matters which we discussed, but would do so on the basis of an 'honorarium', and not a 'fee basis' as had been proposed in my earlier letter."
Last month, an article was published questioning the fee arrangements in the Attorney General's Chamber. However, Mr. Hylton quickly dismissed the claims of questionable fee arrangements by pointing out that the entities referred to in the article were statutory bodies and government companies. Checks with the Staff Orders confirmed Mr. Hylton's claim that statutory bodies and government companies can be charged.
At that time, Mr. Hylton said central government entities should not be charged, as the lawyers from the Attorney General's Department were already paid to represent such bodies.
"Members of the Chamber are constitutionally mandated (and paid) to provide legal services to the departments and ministries of central government and the Chamber does not render invoices for doing so," read a section of Mr. Hylton's response to the article.
Meris Haughton, director of Public Relations at the TASD, toldour news team that her department is a central government entity and that the Solicitor-General had in fact requested remuneration for work done by himself and other lawyers in the Attorney-General's Chamber.
"It is not a government company. It is one of five departments that report directly to the Director-General of Tax Administration, who reports to the Financial Secretary at the Ministry of Finance," she explained. However, she could not say if any payments were made.
"We cannot find any record that an actual payment was made (but) there is a commitment requisition for an amount during the period 2001. Our records, however, show that subsequent to that no such request has come from the Attorney-General for any payment nor has any payment been forwarded to the Attorney-General."
She added: "Any such payment would ultimately rest with the Ministry of Finance, which handles our account."
Dr. Carlton Davis, Cabinet Secretary, also corroborated that entities that fall within the ambit of central government should not be charged.
"All I will say is that the Staff Orders lay out the rules of engagement to deal with these thingsÉ If there is any deviation, speak to the two heads and speak to them directly," he added.
Patrick Foster, Deputy Solicitor-General told The Gleaner that he was not in a position to respond to the issue. However, he said, Mr. Hylton, who is overseas on official business, plans to issue a response by today.