Case

Archive for December, 2008|Monthly archive page

HK – Edward Ryan – Biography

In 1 on December 30, 2008 at 5:25 pm

Edward F. Ryan
Partner


 Chicago: 312-578-6552       Email:  edward.ryan@hklaw.com

Edward F. Ryan has focused his practice on commercial litigation on behalf of major corporate clients for more than 30 years. During this period he has served as lead trial counsel in over five dozen trials and has extensive civil litigation experience, including national class action defense, at the trial and appellate levels before administrative agencies and federal and state courts, including Illinois, Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, California, Arizona, Texas, Connecticut, New York, Kansas, Indiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Michigan, South Carolina and Pennsylvania. He has represented a variety of clients, including Allstate, Union Carbide, Waste Management, New York Life, Picker Industries, Pinnacle Homes, Northern Trust, Ameritech, Northrop Grumman, and NetBank, in a broad scope of commercial litigation from antitrust to employment discrimination, and from contract disputes to securities cases.
In addition to his commercial litigation practice, Mr. Ryan has tried complex governmental, land use and environmental cases in state and federal courts on behalf of private interests, as well as governmental bodies.
Mr. Ryan is admitted to practice in Illinois and Florida. He is a member of the Chicago, Florida and American Bar Associations. He has also lectured nationwide in seminars on behalf of the American Law Institute and American Bar Association on various litigation issues.
Mr. Ryan received his B.A. magna cum laude from the University of St. Thomas and earned his J.D. in 1968 from Georgetown University Law Center.
 
 
 
"We are very careful . . . when we take in a matter, to have an open discussion with clients,'' says Ed Ryan, a partner with Chicago's Holland & Knight LLP. That includes drawing up an engagement letter that details fee structure, billing schedule, scope of work and how conflicts are handled.

Mr. Ryan, who oversees the firm's billing and collections, tells of one case where the firm was handling civil litigation for a client, but not a related government investigation. When the client hired a new in-house counsel, who wondered why Holland & Knight hadn't been pursuing the government matter, the firm was able to use its engagement letter to show that it had fulfilled the original expectations.

Another situation didn't turn out as well. In that case, there was confusion about who would pay for expert witnesses, and because that hadn't been spelled out upfront, Holland ended up eating the costs, "which were very heavy.''

Posted via email from HKLaw Investigation

HK – Petition to cap plaintiff attorney fees

In 1 on December 30, 2008 at 1:22 am

Florida Tort Reform

The Florida voters passed a constitutional amendment to limit attorneys' fees in med mal cases to 30% of the first $250K in damages and 10% in any recovery about $250K.

So, a $1M verdict would entitle the patient's attorney to a total fee of $130K. A $2M verdict would result in a fee of $260K. The result: in other than a slam dunk case where no liability or causation discovery was necessary, a plaintiff's attorney would be working for $100 per hour or less, an amount less than the paralegal rate in major cities.

Florida plaintiffs' attorneys then starting giving their potential clients the option of waiving their "constitutional right" to a fee cap.

Now, 55 Florida lawyers have filed a petition to ask the Florida Supreme Court to cap the fees of plaintiffs' attorneys in med mal cases by rule. Here is the petition they filed. The Petition was filed by Holland & Knight, a law firm that has 52 lawyers that represent the health care industry.

These lawyers who signed this Petition have the right to free speech. So do I. Each of the lawyers are an embarrassment to the profession. Each of them know – or should know – that these fee caps work to deprive med mal victims of representation by good lawyers. To the extent that any of these lawyers defend malpractice cases, they obviously fear competent representation of a patient. I would suggest that these lawyers get out of med mal defense work and do something more consistent with their confidence in their ability to persuade like, say, working the floating plastic duckling concession at a carnival.

Most med mal lawyers I know know how difficult (and expensive) it is to prepare and try a med mal case for the plaintiff. Most would agree that these caps are absolutely ridiculous.

The Florida lawyers who filed this Petition ought to be ashamed. Hopefully, the Florida Supreme Court will reject it.

Thanks to Abstract Appeal for bringing this Petition to my attention

http://www.dayontorts.com/general-legal-news-florida-tort-reform.html

Posted via email from HKLaw Investigation

HK – Florida Public Service Commission transcript – Fees and Expenses

In 1 on December 30, 2008 at 12:59 am
FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 
 

                                                                    776 

         1        Q    And can you share that with us? 

         2        A    Yes.  I've examined the legal bills, the consultants' 

         3   bills and in-house charges from Aqua Services associated with 

         4   rate case expense. 

         5             I am recommending that the Commission disallow rate 

         6   case expense associated with billings from the Rutledge, Ecenia 

         7   Law Firm that were related to the last rate case.  There's 

         8   $40,000 worth of expenses associated with the 2006 rate case 

         9   that were included in the legal expenses.  I'm also 

        10   recommending that legal expenses associated with the refund 

        11   reports associated with the last rate case be disallowed. 

        12             I'm recommending that expenses associated with the 

        13   townhall meetings be disallowed.  I'm also recommending that 

        14   legal expenses associated with Mr. Rendell's — the lawyers 

        15   spent a lot of time examining the ethical issues associated 

        16   with Mr. Rendell's employment, and I'm recommending that those 

        17   expenses be disallowed. 

        18             I'm recommending that the law firm, Holland

        19   Knight's expenses associated with Lake Suzy matters be 

        20   disallowed.  They spent approximately $8,000, $9,000 on Lake 

        21   Suzy issues associated with the fact — as I understand it from 

        22   reading the legal bills, that particular system was owned by a 

        23   Texas company and there were some concerns apparently about how 

        24   that particular system could be a part of this rate case.  And 

        25   if you look at that legal bill, it's not even associated with 
 
 

                            FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 
 

                                                                    777 

         1   the rate case.  It's an entirely different bill.  It has a 

         2   different in re in terms of what they're billing for. 

         3             In addition, on that particular bill, on those 

         4   particular bills Mr. May charged, I believe it was $460 an 

         5   hour; whereas, in the rate case he's charging $365. 

         6             I'm also recommending that legal expenses associated 

         7   with certain discovery matters be disallowed.  The company at 

         8   some point during the process changed their protocol in terms 

         9   of responding to OPC discovery.  And rather than providing us 

        10   with information electronically, they kept the information at 

        11   Holland & Knight and required that OPC come and examine those 

        12   documents.  In order for OPC to do that, the company had to 

        13   print the documents rather than provide that information 

        14   electronically, and I don't believe it's appropriate that the 

        15   ratepayers should pay for that added expense. 

        16             In addition, on the legal bills for Holland & Knight 

        17   there were charges associated with the return on equity 

        18   leverage proceeding.  At one point in time it appears from 

        19   reading the legal bills that they were thinking about 

        20   intervening in that docket.  They did not intervene in that 

        21   docket, so I'm recommending that those expenses be disallowed. 

        22   They're not associated with this rate case. 

        23             I'm also recommending that expenses from the law firm 

        24   be disallowed associated with the time to respond to the staff 

        25   deficiencies.  I'm also recommending that expenses be 
 
 

                            FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 
 

                                                                    778 

         1   disallowed associated with the substitution of witnesses, 

         2   particularly with the one witness Mr. Rendell.  His testimony 

         3   was taken over by Mr. Smeltzer and there are legal fees 

         4   associated with that. 

         5             I'm also recommending that the consulting fees be 

         6   disallowed for the deficiencies, and there's quite a bit of 

         7   expense there.  And then I'm also recommending that $67,000 be 

         8   disallowed associated with AUS Consultants' fees.  In the last 

         9   rate case the — that particular firm did the billing analysis 

        10   in this proceeding, and in the last case those functions were 

        11   performed by more or less in-house individuals.  And so I'm 

        12   recommending that the difference in the hourly rate between 

        13   what was charged by AUS Consultants and the charge of the 

        14   individuals that are, they're in-house — some are in-house but 

        15   others are consultants that primarily work for the company that 

        16   are charging $100 an hour.  So what I've done is substituted 

        17   the $100 an hour for his time. 

        18        Q    Do you have any additional comments? 

        19        A    I'm just trying to make sure I've covered it all. 

        20        Q    Okay. 

 

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:a9UOfQnKsjQJ:www.psc.state.fl.us/library/filings/08/11435-08/11435-08-trn.doc+audit+legal+fees+holland+%26+knight&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=60&gl=us

Posted via email from HKLaw Investigation

HK – Rockville City Attorney

In 1 on December 30, 2008 at 12:42 am

Civic Strategy as presented by Brad Rourke

Posted via email from HKLaw Investigation

HK – FDIC Audit questions $222,690 of fees

In 1 on December 30, 2008 at 12:28 am
 

Legal Fees Paid by FDIC to Holland & Knight

(Audit Report No. 98-058, June 12, 1998) Summary

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has completed an audit of legal fees paid to Holland & Knight, a law firm hired by the FDIC. The audit was conducted by the independent public accounting (IPA) firm of Doshi & Associates, through a contract with the former Resolution Trust Corporation OIG, and covered billings paid from January 1, 1990 through June 30, 1993.

The objective of the audit was to determine whether the fee bills submitted by the law firm present fairly the expenses and activities of the cases for which the fee bills were submitted. Accordingly, Holland & Knight's fee bills were reviewed to determine whether they were: (1) adequately supported by source documentation, (2) prepared in compliance with applicable FDIC cost provisions, (3) consistent with the terms and conditions of the governing agreements, and (4) representative of the cost of services and litigation which were approved in advance by the FDIC. The total fees paid to the firm during the audit period were $3,672,799. The auditors identified net questioned costs of $222,690 from an audit sample of $1,625,408.

Recommendations

That the Assistant General Counsel, Legal Operations Section, Legal Division, should disallow:

(1) $179,002 for unauthorized personnel,
(2) $21,868 for photocopying charges in excess of cost,
(3) $19,794 for inadequate descriptions of services,
(4) $7,950 for mark-ups on facsimile charges,
(5) $6,962 for non-reimbursable overhead expenses,
(6) $2,776 for delivery expenses in excess of actual cost,
(7) $874 for long distance telephone charges billed in excess of actual cost,
and
(8) $88 for administrative charges.

Also, the Assistant General Counsel, Legal Operations Section, Legal Division, should reject and return any future invoices that contain block billed entries.

Management Response

In response to a draft of this report, management disallowed questioned costs totaling $17,012. Although management's corrective actions on recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 5 differed from the recommended corrective actions, the OIG considers management's response as providing the requisites for a management decision on each of the recommendations.

Specifically, in recommendation 1, the OIG recommended disallowance of $179,002 for unauthorized personnel. Management allowed $178,303 and disallowed $699. The Legal Division concluded that the FDIC had no contractual right to insist on lower negotiated rates since an LSA had not been executed. Therefore, the OIG will reduce questioned costs to $699. However, the OIG recommends that the Legal Division formally ratify the $178,303 in fees which were billed to the FDIC without an LSA.

In recommendation 2, the OIG recommended disallowance of $21,868 for photocopying charges in excess of cost. Management allowed $21,806 and disallowed $62. The Legal Division concluded that the FDIC had no contractual right to insist on lower rates since an LSA had not been executed. Since the Guide for Legal Representation explicitly states that photocopying will be reimbursed at cost, the IPA appropriately questioned the photocopying costs for violating the guidelines established by the Legal Division. However, the OIG will accept the Legal Division's policy of allowing up to $.15 or $.08 per page without a cost study. Therefore, the OIG will reduce questioned costs to $14,283.

In recommendation 3, the OIG recommended disallowance of $19,794 for time billed without an adequate description of services. Management allowed the full amount. The Legal Division has concluded that the descriptions are in compliance with applicable standards. Upon further review of the questioned entries, the OIG agrees with the Legal Division's decision not to disallow the $19,794. Therefore, the OIG will reduce questioned costs to $0.

In recommendation 5, the OIG recommended disallowance of $6,962 for non- reimbursable overhead expenses. Management allowed $2,399 and disallowed $4,563. In response to the draft report, the Legal Division provided an explanation which supports $2,399 of the questioned charges. As a result, the OIG will reduce questioned costs to $4,563.

Based on the IPA's work, $222,690 was questioned in the draft report. After considering management's comments on the findings, we will report questioned costs of $31,233, including $26,582 of unsupported costs, in our Semiannual Report to the Congress.

http://www.fdicoig.gov/reports98/98-058.shtml

 

Posted via email from HKLaw Investigation

HK – Ethical Concerns

In 1 on December 30, 2008 at 12:03 am

Competition Sprouts One-Stop Law Firms; Diversification Means Higher Profits But Opens Door to Ethical Concerns

By CRYSTAL NIX HINES
Published: May 31, 2001

Need a private investigator? Try H & K Investigative Solutions. Want advice on how to win government subsidies for environmentally sound real estate projects? Turn to H & K Conservation Solutions. How about money management advice, a real estate feasibility study, evaluation of a merger or acquisition or documents translated into virtually any language in the world? H & K has business units to meet the need.

All of these enterprises, and several others, are not the work of some crazy-quilt conglomerate, but of a single law firm, Holland & Knight, based in Tampa, Fla.

''It was evident in the legal community four or five years ago that a multidisciplinary approach would be welcome by clients and was a cutting-edge issue,'' said Bill McBride, a managing partner at Holland & Knight. ''That's turned out to be correct.''

As competition among law firms has increased, associate salaries have skyrocketed and demand for ''one stop'' shopping has grown, a small but growing number of law firms are turning to nonlegal businesses as a way not only to serve their clients but also to lift the bottom line.

These businesses are the latest evolution in a legal market that has transformed law firms from small collections of general practitioners to highly specialized and global megafirms scrambling to generate more and more sources of wealth.

Firms engaged in such diversification have moved beyond the traditional fare of ''government relations,'' or lobbying, to a much broader array of businesses that were once entirely independent — everything from environmental consulting to human resources outsourcing, real estate title services to money management.

But some experts worry that the profession has not fully faced up to the potential consequences of this trend.

Advocates of this approach say that they can surmount any potential ethical concerns by ensuring that consultants and lawyers work on the same side of a transaction, and by carefully complying with rules that govern conflicts of interest and ethics.

But others are unconvinced. Lawrence J. Fox, a partner at the Philadelphia-based law firm Drinker Biddle & Reath, who was active in the decision by American Bar Association to deny law firms the ability to share legal fees with nonlawyers in so-called multidisciplinary practices, said that ancillary businesses posed a number of concerns.

If law firms provide nonlegal services, it weakens the assertion that nonlawyers should not provide legal services, he said, ''which would be a very, very bad thing.''

There is a further risk, he added, that clients — confused by the dual provision of services — will not realize that the attorney-client privilege and conflict-of-interest rules applicable to legal work do not apply to the business ventures.

Monroe H. Freedman, who teaches legal ethics at the Hofstra University School of Law in Hempstead, N.Y., agrees that problems may arise as the practice spreads.

''There is always the risk,'' Mr. Freedman said, ''that a court would find that a particular aspect of the work being done is not really legal work or not exclusively or sufficiently legal work, or that because nonlawyers are involved, the confidentiality privilege is lost.''

Mr. Fox points out that there is also the risk that lawyers will steer clients to their own business concerns, rather than fulfilling their obligation to lay out a range of options objectively. And economic incentives create the fear that firms with ancillary businesses may be less inclined to discourage clients from pursuing particular business transactions if the firm's own units stand to benefit from a deal.

''The hallmark of a lawyer is to tell a client no,'' Mr. Fox said. ''But the greater the number of sources of income, the greater the opportunity that services will not be delivered in the right way.''

Law firms are prohibited from having partnerships with nonlawyers to provide legal services. They can, however, pay salaried employees like secretaries, investigators, paralegals and others who assist in the provision of legal services.

Law firms are also not barred from running wholly separate nonlegal businesses, even if they are related to the practice of law and even if the profits flow back to the law firms, as long as they comply with applicable rules of professional conduct requiring the preservation of client confidentiality, loyalty and avoidance of client confusion.

Jay S. Zimmerman, managing partner of the Boston-based Bingham Dana, which has started three ancillary businesses in the last three years, acknowledged that some of his partners initially had concerns about forming the nonlegal ventures. It took more than two years, he said, to make everyone feel comfortable with starting a money management concern in a joint venture with Legg Mason, the Baltimore financial services company.

''People had a knee-jerk reaction that a law firm and an investment group can't have a joint venture,'' Mr. Zimmerman said. ''But we worked through the disciplinary rules and the law with respect to fiduciary responsibilities, and created a model that has worked.''

Bingham Dana also has a consulting firm that develops state-by-state strategies for companies in highly regulated industries, and a strategic advising company that helps small to midsize companies with mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, business revamping and access to venture capital.

Mr. Zimmerman said the impetus for the ventures was the success of the Big Five accounting firms, which had diversified from the single service of auditing into highly profitable, multifaceted business services conglomerates.

The accounting firms ''took their two main assets — reputation and client base — and leveraged them by looking at the needs and effectively cross-selling, creating a whole line of businesses which became very lucrative,'' Mr. Zimmerman said. Law firms, he added, ''have the same assets,'' and can likewise provide ''a combined, integrated approach.''

Yet, while the accounting firms have amassed huge profits through diversification, their model is not without problems. In recent years, most of the major accounting firms, starting with Arthur Andersen, have moved to split off their consulting businesses, because of disputes over allocating profits and providing client services.

And like critics of ancillary law firm businesses, the Securities and Exchange Commission has expressed concern that auditors in a diversified company might not be truly independent from big clients that paid them more in consulting fees than they paid for their corporate auditing. Last year, the S.E.C. reached an agreement with four leading accounting firms on a new rule that would substantially reduce the amount of consulting work that the firms could do for their auditing clients.

But leaders at a number of law firms remain undaunted. In the last 18 months in particular, the interest of major law firms in ancillary businesses has boomed, according to Joel F. Henning, senior vice president and general counsel of Hildebrandt International, a consulting firm that is advising about two dozen law firms engaged in nonlegal operations.

To run their operations, law firms have hired a wide range of professionals. H & K Conservation Solutions, for instance, is headed by the former president of the Florida Audubon Society, William Clay Henderson. Don R. Zell, a former federal agent with the Justice Department's strike force and the Drug Enforcement Agency, leads the firm's investigative unit, which charges clients $90 to $170 an hour to do such things as look into suspected intellectual property infringements, examine sexual harassment claims, evaluate prospective merger partners and run undercover operations.

For many firms, existing clients are a fertile source of business for the nonlegal operations. John L. Harrington, chief executive of the Boston Red Sox, is one of them. The baseball team has used Bingham Dana lawyers for over 70 years, he said, so when he decided to sell the Red Sox, he turned to the firm's newly created strategic advice unit to handle the deal.

Another Bingham Dana client, Charles and Carolyn McCannon, signed up with the firm's money management concern after they sold their real estate investment company several years ago.

''We always kept our money under the pillow,'' Mr. McCannon joked recently, ''so it was quite a leap of faith to put it in the hands of somebody else. But we felt an immediate connection'' with the president of Bingham Legg Advisers.

Exactly how profitable additional business operations will be is unclear. ''The economic success is all over the lot,'' Mr. Henning of Hildebrandt International said.

Arnold & Porter, the Washington-based law firm, created a public affairs consulting unit, APCO Worldwide, in 1984 but spun it off in the early 1990's. James W. Jones, a former managing partner of Arnold & Porter who helped start APCO, said that while the unit enhanced the firm's services to its clients, ''it is fair to say the law firm didn't make an awful lot of money from APCO.''

But leaders at other firms maintain that profits will grow substantially over time, because of client demand and the ability to take percentages of deals and to use fixed fees, which they expect may be more profitable than the traditional practice of billing by the hour.

Thomas H. Dyer, chief executive of Holland & Knight Consulting, which oversees the firm's nine wholly owned subsidiaries, said that since its formation two years ago, ''we doubled our revenue over our first year, turned a profit on our operations, and are expecting to double our revenue again this year.''

Duane Morris, which is based in Philadelphia, has seven business concerns, which generated $7 million in revenue last year and a net profit of about $2.5 million, according to a managing partner, Sheldon M. Bonovitz. Out of a total revenue for the law firm of $160 million, that figure is small, he said, but ''in three to five years, if we can have $20 million in revenue, and $8 million in law firm income, at some point it gets to be significant.''

Perhaps one of the most successful is FirmLogic, a company started by Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice 15 years ago in Winston-Salem, N.C., to help law firms and corporations with document coding and review. It has since expanded to medical records and support for class-action settlements. Last year, it generated $23 million of the firm's $129 million, according to Hassel L. Parker, its chief executive, and will be ''north of $30 million this year.''

But creating the right business is difficult, firm leaders and industry experts say, particularly for lawyers not used to running a business.

''There are an awful lot of firms where I advise against it,'' Mr. Henning said. ''I can see the handwriting on the wall, the disaster, the culture and arrogance on the part of the lawyers, and the inability to understand management, what it means to invest in businesses, and take a long-term strategic view.''

And for some blue-chip law firms, ancillary businesses simply do not make sense.

''You are not going to see the Cravaths and Wachtels of the world going into ancillary businesses,'' Mr. Henning said. ''They have a good thing going with a huge potential client base of absolutely the most important bet-the-company transactions and cases.''

But, he added, there are ''only a handful of Wachtels and Cravaths out there.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02EFDF113CF932A05756C0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Posted via email from HKLaw Investigation

HK – OIG Billing Audit identified $1,422,038 of questionable legal bills

In 1 on December 29, 2008 at 11:53 pm

 Legal Fees Paid by RTC to Holland & Knight

(Audit Report No. 98-062, June 19, 1998) Summary

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has completed an audit of Holland & Knight, a law firm hired to provide legal services to the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC). The audit was conducted by the independent public accounting firm (IPA) of Doshi & Associates, P.C. through a contract with the OIG, and covered billings paid by RTC from January 1, 1990, through June 30, 1993. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether Holland & Knight's legal bills were adequately supported and in compliance with the cost limitations set forth by RTC and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and that charges for legal services provided to RTC were reasonable. The total fees paid to the law firm for RTC-related work during the audit period were $5,735,630. The audit sample covered $3,103,209, or 54 percent of the total. The IPA identified net questioned costs of $1,422,038.

Recommendations

That the Assistant General Counsel (AGC), Legal Operations Section, Legal Division, should disallow:

(1) $10,258 for billing errors,
(2) $616 for excess travel time,
(3) $662 for transient billers,
(4) $1,329,399 for unauthorized billers,
(5) $926 for entries with vague descriptions,
(6) $1,145 for professional fees billed for administrative tasks,
(7) $5,238 for unauthorized research,
(8) $15,595 for excess copying charges,
(9) $2,695 for excess telephone charges,
(10) $30,124 for unsupported facsimile charges,
(11) $394 for unauthorized data base charges,
(12) $1,221 for duplicate and unsupported travel charges,
(13) $576 for surcharges on courier services,
(14) $8,048 for express mail overcharges,
(15) $1,642 for overhead expenses,
(16) $44 for ordinary postage,
(17) $2,339 for unsupported charges related to a missing invoice, and
(18) $11,116 for inappropriate billings.

In addition, the OIG recommended that the AGC (recommendation 19) assess the appropriateness of the unaudited billings and disallow the costs deemed inappropriate.

Management Response

The General Counsel's response to a draft of this report provided the requisites for a management decision on each of the recommendations. Management disallowed a total of $48,461. Management's corrective actions on recommendations 5 through 10, 15, and 17 differed from the recommended corrective actions. Nonetheless, we consider management's response as providing the requisites for a management decision. Specifically, for recommendations 5, 15, and 17 management allowed all the questioned charges for vague descriptions, messenger services, and costs related to a missing invoice, respectively. The OIG accepts management's explanation for each of these recommendations and, accordingly, reduced questioned costs to $0.

In recommendation 6, the OIG recommended that FDIC disallow $1,145 for professional fees billed for administrative tasks. Management allowed $482 and disallowed $663. Specifically, management reviewed all the questioned charges and allowed $482 charged by an attorney to prepare settlement packages. The OIG accepts management's explanation and, accordingly, reduced questioned costs to $663.

In recommendation 7, the OIG recommended that FDIC disallow $5,238 for unauthorized research. Management allowed all the questioned charges. Lacking specific evidence or independent confirmation from the oversight attorney that the research was approved, the OIG cannot verify that the research was authorized. Therefore, the OIG will continue to question $5,238 for research.

In recommendation 8, the OIG recommended that FDIC disallow $15,595 for excess copying charges. Management allowed all the questioned charges. Management concluded that the Legal Division did not have a contractual right to lower the rate charged by the firm because all of the questioned charges occurred before the date of the firm's first legal services agreement (LSA) with RTC. The OIG will continue to question the $15,595 for excess copying charges because, notwithstanding the lack of an LSA, FDIC guidelines explicitly stated that photocopying would be reimbursed at cost.

In recommendation 9, the OIG recommended that FDIC disallow $2,695 for excess telephone charges. Management allowed $1,385 and disallowed $1,310 for the excess charges occurring after the firm executed an LSA with RTC. The OIG will continue to question $2,695 for excess telephone charges because, notwithstanding the lack of an LSA, FDIC's policy was to only pay actual costs for expenses.

In recommendation 10, the OIG recommended that FDIC disallow $30,124 for unsupported facsimile charges. Management allowed $17,030 and disallowed $13,094 for facsimile charges occurring after the execution of the firm's LSA. The OIG will continue to question $30,124 for unsupported facsimile charges because, notwithstanding the lack of an LSA, FDIC's policy was to only pay actual costs for expenses.

Based on the IPA's audit work, $1,422,038 was questioned in the draft report transmitted to management. In addition to the recommendations previously discussed, in recommendation 4, the OIG recommended that FDIC analyze the qualifications of employees working on RTC matters but not listed on the LSA, determine how much of the $1,329,399 in questioned charges should be ratified, and disallow any of the charges not approved. Of the $1,329,399 questioned, the Legal Division ratified $1,328,940 and disallowed $459 because some rates charged were excessive. The OIG accepts the action taken by management and, accordingly, reduced questioned costs to $459. After considering $48,461 in disallowances taken by management and management's comments on the IPA's findings, we will report questioned costs of $87,709 (including $41,267 of unsupported costs) in our Semiannual Report to the Congress.

Posted via email from HKLaw Investigation

HK – The Perfect Crime?

In 1 on December 29, 2008 at 2:23 pm

The Perfect Crime?

Posted by Ashby Jones

reebokWilliam Ross, a professor at Samford University’s Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, Ala., calls it “the perfect crime.” NYU legal ethics guru Stephen Gillers says there’s a “general consensus” that the practice is on the upswing. The practice? Law-firm billing fraud, and the WSJ’s Nathan Koppel takes a look at the issue through the lens of a series of incidents that allegedly took place in Holland & Knight’s Chicago office.

After Matthew Farmer, a 42-year old junior partner with the firm, suspected that his own hours on a trial for home builder Pinnacle Corp. had been inflated by the partner in charge of billing, 62-year-old Edward Ryan, he blew the whistle on the firm.

The firm took no action and denies Mr. Ryan or the firm did anything wrong. “The amount billed by Holland & Knight in the litigation was reasonable and appropriate,” says L. Kinder Cannon III, the firm’s general counsel. Mr. Ryan declines to comment. Last October, Mr. Farmer took a 7% pay cut to join Cohn Baughman & Martin, a 12-lawyer firm. He says he left because he was upset that Holland & Knight wasn’t acting against Mr. Ryan.

It’s a sensitive issue. But, lawyers out there, we’re curious: How prevalent is billing fraud at law firms? Have you seen it? Have you been pressured to pad hours? Have you suspected your colleagues?

Update The St. Petersburg Times on Thursday posted a copy of a letter that Matthew Farmer wrote to a judge earlier this year, detailing the alleged billing fraud that he discovered at Holland & Knight.

Comments
Report offensive comments to lawblog@wsj.com

This has always been fertile ground for scandal. Lawyers are judged not by the quality of their work but by the number of hours they bill; clients, often huge corporations, blithely pay these invoices without any oversight or parameters as to what is reasonable under the circumstances. So is it any surprise when bills are inflated? But soon, many companies, if they have not already, are going to get sick of being ripped off and start acting toward lawyers the same way they act toward the people they buy paper from.

Comment by Dennis BedardAugust 30, 2006 at 10:13 am

This happens all the time, every day at law firms around the country.

Comment by scandamonAugust 30, 2006 at 10:27 am

With the extraordinary hours pressure placed on every lawyer at the big firms, from brand new associates to even mid-level partners (except perhaps (?) the biggest rainmakers), it should come as no surprise to law firm management that overbilling (or just plain over-working) of matters occurs. I’ve round-tripped from big firms to in house several times in the past 20 years, and the focus on hours seems to have grown significantly in the past few years – in many cases largely crowding out other values such as good lawyering, client management, mentoring, etc. If the big firms don’t figure out a way to balance these factors more appropriately, we are going to see more and more cases like H&K – and the big clients will be whistleblowers too.

Comment by GCAugust 30, 2006 at 10:43 am

Hourly billing causes firms to lose clients who fear they are being duped; to lose associates tired of being judged based on hours alone; to lose marketing power because marketing is undervalued when compared to to billables; and to lose efficient production of work product (can you imagine how much a toaster might cost if the people working the assembly line were told they were paid based on the amount of time they spent crafting the toaster, rather than based on the output and number of toaster purchases?).

When will law firms abandon an out-dated model that clearly has little or no relevance in modern times?

Comment by alliAugust 30, 2006 at 10:49 am

…when clients go to some sort of payment for value, not for objectively messured inputs. Some big clients startng doing this some time ago.

Comment by Mark WeinsteinAugust 30, 2006 at 10:51 am

Those interested in the likely response of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission may wish to review the results of the ARDC’s investigation of the Chapman & Cutler attorney who (allegedly) billed 6,000 hours in one year. This was back in the 1990s, and was the subject of an article in, I believe, the WSJ. You can do the math, but to bill this many hours, you have to work 13-14 hours a day, 365 days a year (yes, that includes Thanksgiving, Christmas, Independence Day and New Year’s Day). This was reported to the ARDC, but to my knowledge, the ARDC did nothing.

Comment by Thirdman47August 30, 2006 at 10:52 am

What a surprise, a large firm is reported to the bar and nothing happens.

At most law firm, overworking associates is the problem, rather than overbilling itself; they usually have more than enough work to do. Of course, many lawyers are tempted by personal circumstance (trying to meet a billing quota, trying to make partner, etc.).

Overbilling is probably more typical at smaller firms that bill by the hour, when work becomes scarce and lawyers are tempted to inflate their timesheets.

Comment by JBAugust 30, 2006 at 12:01 pm

I have done thousands of write downs, but never a write-up. The problem is that selling hours, like a ditch-digger, is a fundamentally wrong way of valuing legal services. Clients do not benefit from hours, they benefit from trial victories, completed transactions and resolved problems.

Comment by AnonymousAugust 30, 2006 at 12:16 pm

I have no problem if a law firm says to me “we only worked 10 hours on your problem, but we saved you a million dollars, so our fee is going to be two times (or three times) our normal amount.” But I have a very serious problem if a law firm says to me (through its bill) we worked so many hours on your problem and in fact did not work that many hours. Question: should inside lawyers be imposing on outside lawyers some kind of audit requirement, some check of the bills against the handwritten time sheets (I assume there are still are such things)?

Comment by Inside GCAugust 30, 2006 at 12:38 pm

Correction on the math: You’d have to work about 16.3 hours every day of the year to bill 6,000 hours. How the Illinois ARDC failed to find anything wrong with this boggles the mind, at least until one remembers that the attorney in question was one of the legal ubermenschen at a heavy-hitting, white-shoe, old-line Chicago firm. If the same hours had been billed by an untermenschen lawyer doing scutwork in the suburbs, you can rest assured that there would be another pelt nailed to the wall of the ARDC outhouse.

Comment by Thirdman47August 30, 2006 at 12:47 pm

A description of the fraud by the Chapman & Cutler partner (and a similar fraud by his wife), see http://www.hofstra.edu/PDF/law_lerman2.pdf, starting with Part IV.

Comment by AnonymousAugust 30, 2006 at 1:00 pm

The funny thing about the ARDC case is that 6000 hour biller’s husband, who was the managing partner at Winston, was also accused of billing fraud. Shades of “Fun with Dick and Jane,” no?

Comment by JoeyAugust 30, 2006 at 1:04 pm

See http://www.hofstra.edu/PDF/law_lerman2.pdf (starting with Part IV) for a full description of the Winston & Srawn and Chapman & Cutler husband & wife overbilling/fraud scandal.

Comment by Just google itAugust 30, 2006 at 1:12 pm

Anonymous properly mentions the so-called “idiocy of the billable hour,” but there is no distinction between a ditch digger and a lawyer. When I hire a ditch digger, I don’t benefit from the hours spent, I benefit from the completed ditches. Yet the fact is that internal hourly compensation for employees is usually the norm WITHIN a firm, although when I hire the firm to dig my ditch, it usually bids on a non-hourly basis ($ per foot, whatever). Coase can probably explain why this distinction persists.

Doctors don’t charge by the hour. Auto mechanics may apply an “hourly rate” to services, but the disclaimer on the bill says that a certain service has a “flat” hourly fee, even if the actual hours spent are different.

What makes lawyers different? The “inherent uncertainty in the time required?” Sounds like special pleading.

Comment by Doug PappasAugust 30, 2006 at 1:44 pm

Where is the client? It’s all about OPM: Other People’s Money. Overbilling (too many real hours, or fake hours) disputes are usually limited to a situation where someone else’s money is being spent. The HK dispute is triggered internally. In the late 80’s and early 90’s, legal auditors were the product of insurance companies: the party benefiting (the insured) was not the party paying (the insurer). Later, fee examiners arose in big bankruptcy cases, where debtor was (really) almost always insolvent, so debtor or trustee was in essence spending the creditors’ money–another disconnect between paying and benefiting. The fact that we seldom see a dispute between a real client and its counsel suggests that the market may be more effective than we acknowledge. If IBM balks at a Cravath bill, IBM is able to address it, and we don’t read about it in the blawgs.

Comment by Doug PappasAugust 30, 2006 at 1:51 pm

Where was Pinnacle Corp. during all of this? I hope they were more careful with their other vendors/suppliers, especially in the honest construction business.

Comment by AnonAugust 30, 2006 at 2:16 pm

I wonder if this is the most comments any item on this blog has ever received? It’s clearly a hot button with many inside and outside lawyers. One comment on Anonymous’ post: This may be an arena where the bluest of blue chip firms (Cravath, Davis Polk, Sullivan, a few others) have a real advantage, in that they try hard to limit their work (transactional work anyway) to projects where they can bill a “success premium” and simply present a “for services rendered $xxx” bill at the closing – thus no worries about whether anyone padded hours or not. And of course small firms often have smaller, perhaps more vigilant, clients as a check against hours padding. So is it the firms in between those two models that have the most to worry about (and who we GC’s should worry about most)?

Comment by GCAugust 30, 2006 at 2:42 pm

This has been going on forever and nothing is done because the big firms are in bed with company general counsel who, in turn, are alumni of the big firms. Shareholders of public companies paying the bills should be outraged. Yet, Milberg Weiss gets indicted because it allegedly allowed referring counsel to split legitimately earned attorneys fees (reviewed by the Courts) with clients. What a double standard!

Comment by OutragedAugust 30, 2006 at 5:19 pm

To Inside GC — in our boutique firm with no committees and layers of uninformed review, the practice is to include a verbatim data entry version of the handwritten time sheets in every statement. It sounds a little old fashioned and cumbersome maybe, but no clients object to seeing their lawyers’ timekeeping diaries. As for auditing, a starting point or self-audit procedure that’s pretty standard among institutional clients is agreeing in advance on lineup card with substitutions made only on GC approval.

Comment by SF LawAugust 30, 2006 at 7:54 pm

To Outraged — I don’t think you should assume that just because a court reviews time records that they are “legitmately earned.” The court is looking at the same thing the GCs are looking at—who’s to say drafting that motion should have taken 14 hours vs. 16? How do you second guess how much legal research was enough? What if you’ve found nothing after 10 hours, and then, boom, you hit the treasure trove in the 11th hour? You go to a system where you pay for results rather than time? What incentive does someone have to work that 11th hour and save the client millions, when they could just quickly work a settlement, collect the fee, then move on? It’s like the old story with real estate agents—they’re getting their 3%, why should they put in the extra 20 hours to sell your house for $5000 more when it’ll only make them an extra $150?

Comment by DC law (tired)August 31, 2006 at 1:11 am

I have … always marveled at how many lawyers rob their clients by billable hour padding and get away with it. I personally experienced this many times. One of my most painful experiences was being grossly overcharged by my wife’s divorce lawyer. My lawyer, a very ethical one, condeded that the pill was padded but advised me to keep quiet about it. He said that all I could do was request the detail on the billable hours and her lawyer would fabricate it and the judge would uphold it. I love the phrase, “the perfect crime”. Hopefully this will stick and this chronic problem in many law firms will be brought to the public view.

Comment by Earl StewartAugust 31, 2006 at 8:21 am

Pilferring by lawyers is business as usual for many of them. Padding a bill is just one aspect of this. At the state and federal level they write the laws which enrich themselves. At the courtroom level, they only suffer if they expose wrongdoing within the profession, not for doing wrong themselves. That’s why you see very few lawyers ever held accountable, whether it’s for false billing, false accusations, or such. A profession that encourages specious arguments to advance an agenda is not one that can be trusted. None of this can be fixed as long as lawyers are voted into the legislatures.

Comment by Arthur IgnatiadisAugust 31, 2006 at 12:11 pm

. . . Neither the GC nor Ryan ever thought the bills would be seen by anyone else. . . . I will also point out that nobody should believe that Mr. Farmer is the hero here. He could have discharged his duty by reporting Ryan to the Illinois disciplinary committee. The fact that he also went to the press shows pure vindictiveness. He was always a disgruntled employee – the stuff about how he never thought he’d leave is bunk, pure and simple. Last thing – Farmer is now at Berkshire Hathaway’s captive law firm, where he need never look for a client again. Most people thought he had traded up when he left.

Comment by HK InsiderAugust 31, 2006 at 2:43 pm

Has the WSJ Law Blog sought to ask the opinion of the client (Pinnacle Corp.)victimized by the greedy partner? What does Pinnacle think? Are they pissed?

Comment by The ClientAugust 31, 2006 at 4:14 pm

This is precisely why our firm is so passionate about having abandoned the billable hour in favor of a fixed-price model. There are serious ethical concerns with billable hours, clients hate the model, lawyers hate counting their lives in 6 minute increments, and there really is no way for clients to know better if there is fraud. When things like this happen, how can clients ever “trust” their firms that bill by the hour? It is time for a call to action in our industry and among clients! Malcolm X said “If you are not a part of the solution, you are part of the problem.” To deny that billing fraud is widespread is to have your head in the sand. To admit it and not speak up and stop this outrageous practice is to be no better than the people who rip off clients and ruin what should be a noble profession. Will the leaders of this profession please stand up? Exemplar has taken its stand to make a difference in this profession and I hope that we inspire more professionals to do the same!

Comment by Christopher Marston, Exemplar Law Partners, LLCAugust 31, 2006 at 9:27 pm

As a follow-up to my previous entry and as an expression of commitnent to solving these problems in our industry, I extend an offer to the attorneys in this country who are business savvy, socially normal, and passionate about making positive change in the legal profession to email me about opportunities to be a part of the solution and join an innovative firm with a fixed-price model. I promise to respond! cmarston@exemplarlaw.com

Comment by Christopher Marston, Exemplar Law PartnersAugust 31, 2006 at 10:27 pm

These types of issues are precisely why we started Exemplar Law Partners, which has abandoned the billable hour model in favor of a fixed-price model. I have interviewed hundreds of attorneys, partners and associates alike, from some of the largest firms in the nation and many of them readily admit that billing fraud and bill padding is a part of “daily business.” How can you ever trust a firm that bills by the hour when some of the largest firms engage in this ptactice regularly? Malcolm X said “if you are not a part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.” If you think that billing fraud is not widespread then you have your head in the sand. If you know it is happening and are not standing up for ethics in our profession then you are no better than the firms who are ruining an honorable profession by committing fraud on the people they claim to serve. Will the true leaders in this industry please stand up? Let this be a call to action for clients and attorneys alike. I welcome the attorneys who are passionate about positive change to contact me directly about opportunities to be a part of the solution at our innovative firm.

Comment by Christopher Marston, Exemplar Law PartnersAugust 31, 2006 at 11:34 pm

Malcolm X said “If you are not a part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.” To deny that billing fraud is widespread is to have your head in the sand. To admit it and not take a stand against a practice that is ruining a noble profession by commiting fraud on the people they claim to serve is no better than committing fraud yourself. Will the leaders in this industry please stand up? It is time for a call to action. I welcome the other leaders in this industry to stand with me in making positive change. . . the beginning of which is the end of the billable hour model!

Comment by Christopher MarstonSeptember 1, 2006 at 9:21 am

I suspect junior associates subjected to a billing/bonus minimum have more of an incentive to overbill because, more often than not, a partner discounts their time and the client never gets charged. Of course, the firm gets screwed, I suppose, because they may be awarding bonuses to lawyers who never actually worked the requisite number of hours.

Comment by Junior associatesSeptember 1, 2006 at 4:43 pm

I’m a young attorney in New Orleans, and I am already looking to get out of the practice. I’ve seen so much game-playing and prattling and asshattery from people who are supposed to be respectable professional business attorneys to make me realize that this is not a place I want to be. And I’m sure that its very similar anywhere else. I wanted to help people, but that isnt happening. So goodbye, Bar Commission, and good riddance.

Comment by Ray AdamsSeptember 5, 2006 at 3:47 pm

I had a great experience…represented the husband in a divorce..gave him a detailed bill of hours. After the divorce, wife calls him and asks for his bill to compare to hers. Given the slight difference in hourly, maybe there should have been a small difference in total. He billed twice as many hours for the the same deposition, twice as many hours for the same time we were in court, etc. The wife’s bill was double the husband’s when I actually did more work! Worse, he just gave a bill for generic services rendered. But he got caught. How? Told the wife’s father the day before trial “we have to settle because I didn’t prepare for trial,” then when she forced an accounting, he billed for 10 hours of trial prep. Dare I say he was promptly grieved and she was refunded the money. He was also in a large firm. I was a solo.

Comment by SusanSeptember 5, 2006 at 7:32 pm

Did Holland & Knight ever deny (or even address) the specific allegations in the letter you link to at the top of this post? Has Martha Barnett, the firm’s former ABA president, weighed in on this one?

Comment by RJSeptember 5, 2006 at 9:59 pm

Trackbacks

Third Big Firm Overbilling Scandal

Forget stock option backdating; the real emerging scandal is big law firm billing practices. In the past month, we’ve had…

Trackback by Goldman's ObservationsAugust 30, 2006 at 7:18 pm

Billable Hour Scandal?

It’s widely suspected that the relentless pressure to hit billable hour targets often pushes attorneys to inflate the time they spend on cases and transactions. William Ross, a professor at Samford University’s Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham,…

Trackback by JD Bliss BlogAugust 31, 2006 at 1:23 pm

[…] he believes were fraudulent billing practices.  The Wall Street Journal law blog has a fascinating discussion of the situation, with many insightfulcomments. […]

Trackback by Hourly Billing « Perlmutter & Schuelke, LLPSeptember 5, 2006 at 2:33 pm

The Receiver Fees in the Kirk Wright Bankruptcy – $830K and Counting

According to documents filed by the Receiver in the Bankruptcy of Kirk Wright and his companies, the total bill to the bankrupt’s estate, as of…

Trackback by Psychology of Compliance & Due Diligence LawSeptember 7, 2006 at 11:57 am

 

 

 

 

 

 
   
 

Posted via email from Case Investigation

HK – Ryan oversees the firm’s billing and collections

In 1 on December 28, 2008 at 8:45 pm
 

Automation hasn't solved old-school problem: billing; Paper chase: Law firms still wrestle with in-house records, deadbeat clients.

Publication: Crain's Chicago Business
Publication Date: 13-SEP-04
Format: Online – approximately 756 words
Full Article Title: Automation hasn't solved old-school problem: billing; Paper chase: Law firms still wrestle with in-house records, deadbeat clients.(Technology)

Full Article
Byline: CHRISTINA LE BEAU

The marketing expert was hired because the law firm's income stream had slowed to a trickle. Surely lack of business was to blame. But a month later, the expert told the partners their caseload was plenty big, so the cash crunch must be caused by something else….

…That's when Ed Poll was brought in.

Mr. Poll, a former lawyer and now a legal management consultant based in Venice, Calif., reviewed the firm's financial records and came to a startling conclusion: For every $1 billed, the firm was collecting only 68 cents. "If you're not getting 95% plus, there is something you need to do to recognize why not,'' says Mr. Poll.

Sixty-eight cents might be an extreme example, but every law firm can relate in some way to collection woes. "We deal with overdue accounts very frequently,'' says John Ropiequet, who chairs the billing committee for Chicago's Arnstein & Lehr LLP, which, even so, generally collects 90% to 95% of its fees. "I may have one or two clients a day that I have to talk to.''

Many firms have installed legal billing software to speed the process and reduce one controllable impediment to bill collection: getting in-house staffers to submit records so their time can be billed to the client. Still, getting the client to cut a check-and quickly-remains a challenge in some cases.

In a time when everyone from contractors to doctors require some payment upfront, whether deposits or insurance co-pays, the legal profession remains one of the last to bill largely on faith. Most lawyers do seek retainers, particularly for new clients, but these are quickly depleted and not easily replenished. Often, then, it's bill as you go.

Naturally, this creates cash-flow problems, but not for the reasons one might imagine. Sure, some clients skip out on bills purposely. And others fall behind because of financial difficulties. Firms themselves contribute by not properly managing the billing cycle and failing to chase down delinquent accounts. But, by far, the biggest problem is a disconnect in expectations.

"We are very careful . . . when we take in a matter, to have an open discussion with clients,'' says Ed Ryan, a partner with Chicago's Holland & Knight LLP. That includes drawing up an engagement letter that details fee structure, billing schedule, scope of work and how conflicts are handled.

Mr. Ryan, who oversees the firm's billing and collections, tells of one case where the firm was handling civil litigation for a client, but not a related government investigation. When the client hired a new in-house counsel, who wondered why Holland & Knight hadn't been pursuing the government matter, the firm was able to use its engagement letter to show that it had fulfilled the original expectations.

Another situation didn't turn out as well. In that case, there was confusion about who would pay for expert witnesses, and because that hadn't been spelled out upfront, Holland ended up eating the costs, "which were very heavy.''

Mr. Ropiequet, the Arnstein & Lehr partner, has seen problems when a client asks for an estimate and is told the bill could run, say, $10,000 to $20,000. "Now what does the client hear? They hear `$10,000.' So as soon as it goes past that . . . they might not want to pay.''

Other times the cues are more subtle. Mr. Poll, the legal consultant, worked with one lawyer whose client-a woman going through a messy divorce-switched to another lawyer (still owing money to the first) after a settlement was reached but before the papers were signed. The first lawyer couldn't figure out what went wrong. After all, it was a heck of a financial settlement, and the client never even set foot in a courtroom. Turns out the client wanted to vent publicly at her soon-to-be ex-husband-even if it meant getting less money.

Sometimes it just comes down to a big bill that a client doesn't want to pay. Mr. Ropiequet has renegotiated fees after the fact-for instance, after a client company loses a case it expected to win. "Then all the bills you were sent and had paid suddenly look a lot larger than they did when you were winning,'' he says.

Posted via email from Case Investigation

HK – Ryan Contributions

In 1 on December 28, 2008 at 8:36 pm
 
edward ryan » IL » Hinsdale

Contributor Candidate or PAC Amount Date FEC Filing
RYAN, EDWARD FRANCIS
Hinsdale, IL 60521
Holland & Knight/Lawyer
RYAN, EDWARD FRANCIS
Hinsdale, IL 60521
Holland & Knight/Lawyer
RYAN, EDWARD FRANCIS
Hinsdale, IL 60521
Holland & Knight/Lawyer
RYAN, EDWARD F
HINSDALE, IL 60521
HOLLAND & KNIGHT
RYAN, EDWARD F
HINSDALE, IL 60521
BURKE WEAVER & PRELLO
BIGGERT, JUDY (R)
House (IL 13)
JUDY BIGGERT FOR CONGRESS
$500
general
07/16/98
RYAN, EDWARD P
HINSDALE, IL 60521
BURKE WEAVER & PRELL
BIGGERT, JUDY (R)
House (IL 13)
JUDY BIGGERT FOR CONGRESS
$250
primary
12/08/97

edward ryan » IL » Hinsdale

Contributor Candidate or PAC Amount Date FEC Filing
RYAN, EDWARD FRANCIS
Hinsdale, IL 60521
Holland & Knight/Lawyer
RYAN, EDWARD FRANCIS
Hinsdale, IL 60521
Holland & Knight/Lawyer
RYAN, EDWARD FRANCIS
Hinsdale, IL 60521
Holland & Knight/Lawyer
RYAN, EDWARD F
HINSDALE, IL 60521
HOLLAND & KNIGHT
RYAN, EDWARD F
HINSDALE, IL 60521
BURKE WEAVER & PRELLO
BIGGERT, JUDY (R)
House (IL 13)
JUDY BIGGERT FOR CONGRESS
$500
general
07/16/98
RYAN, EDWARD P
HINSDALE, IL 60521
BURKE WEAVER & PRELL
BIGGERT, JUDY (R)
House (IL 13)
JUDY BIGGERT FOR CONGRESS
$250
primary
12/08/97

edward ryan » IL » Hinsdale

Contributor Candidate or PAC Amount Date FEC Filing
RYAN, EDWARD FRANCIS
Hinsdale, IL 60521
Holland & Knight/Lawyer
RYAN, EDWARD FRANCIS
Hinsdale, IL 60521
Holland & Knight/Lawyer
RYAN, EDWARD FRANCIS
Hinsdale, IL 60521
Holland & Knight/Lawyer
RYAN, EDWARD F
HINSDALE, IL 60521
HOLLAND & KNIGHT
RYAN, EDWARD F
HINSDALE, IL 60521
BURKE WEAVER & PRELLO
BIGGERT, JUDY (R)
House (IL 13)
JUDY BIGGERT FOR CONGRESS
$500
general
07/16/98
RYAN, EDWARD P
HINSDALE, IL 60521
BURKE WEAVER & PRELL
BIGGERT, JUDY (R)
House (IL 13)
JUDY BIGGERT FOR CONGRESS
$250
primary
12/08/97

edward ryan » IL » Hinsdale

Contributor Candidate or PAC Amount Date FEC Filing
RYAN, EDWARD FRANCIS
Hinsdale, IL 60521
Holland & Knight/Lawyer
RYAN, EDWARD FRANCIS
Hinsdale, IL 60521
Holland & Knight/Lawyer
RYAN, EDWARD FRANCIS
Hinsdale, IL 60521
Holland & Knight/Lawyer
RYAN, EDWARD F
HINSDALE, IL 60521
HOLLAND & KNIGHT
RYAN, EDWARD F
HINSDALE, IL 60521
BURKE WEAVER & PRELLO
BIGGERT, JUDY (R)
House (IL 13)
JUDY BIGGERT FOR CONGRESS
$500
general
07/16/98
RYAN, EDWARD P
HINSDALE, IL 60521
BURKE WEAVER & PRELL
BIGGERT, JUDY (R)
House (IL 13)
JUDY BIGGERT FOR CONGRESS
$250
primary
12/08/97

edward ryan » IL » Hinsdale

Contributor Candidate or PAC Amount Date FEC Filing
RYAN, EDWARD FRANCIS
Hinsdale, IL 60521
Holland & Knight/Lawyer
RYAN, EDWARD FRANCIS
Hinsdale, IL 60521
Holland & Knight/Lawyer
RYAN, EDWARD FRANCIS
Hinsdale, IL 60521
Holland & Knight/Lawyer
RYAN, EDWARD F
HINSDALE, IL 60521
HOLLAND & KNIGHT
RYAN, EDWARD F
HINSDALE, IL 60521
BURKE WEAVER & PRELLO
BIGGERT, JUDY (R)
House (IL 13)
JUDY BIGGERT FOR CONGRESS
$500
general
07/16/98
RYAN, EDWARD P
HINSDALE, IL 60521
BURKE WEAVER & PRELL
BIGGERT, JUDY (R)
House (IL 13)
JUDY BIGGERT FOR CONGRESS
$250
primary
12/08/97

edward ryan » IL » Hinsdale

Contributor Candidate or PAC Amount Date FEC Filing
RYAN, EDWARD FRANCIS
Hinsdale, IL 60521
Holland & Knight/Lawyer
RYAN, EDWARD FRANCIS
Hinsdale, IL 60521
Holland & Knight/Lawyer
RYAN, EDWARD FRANCIS
Hinsdale, IL 60521
Holland & Knight/Lawyer
RYAN, EDWARD F
HINSDALE, IL 60521
HOLLAND & KNIGHT
RYAN, EDWARD F
HINSDALE, IL 60521
BURKE WEAVER & PRELLO
BIGGERT, JUDY (R)
House (IL 13)
JUDY BIGGERT FOR CONGRESS
$500
general
07/16/98
RYAN, EDWARD P
HINSDALE, IL 60521
BURKE WEAVER & PRELL
BIGGERT, JUDY (R)
House (IL 13)
JUDY BIGGERT FOR CONGRESS
$250
primary
12/08/97

edward ryan » IL » Hinsdale

Contributor Candidate or PAC Amount Date FEC Filing
RYAN, EDWARD FRANCIS
Hinsdale, IL 60521
Holland & Knight/Lawyer
RYAN, EDWARD FRANCIS
Hinsdale, IL 60521
Holland & Knight/Lawyer
RYAN, EDWARD FRANCIS
Hinsdale, IL 60521
Holland & Knight/Lawyer
RYAN, EDWARD F
HINSDALE, IL 60521
HOLLAND & KNIGHT
RYAN, EDWARD F
HINSDALE, IL 60521
BURKE WEAVER & PRELLO
BIGGERT, JUDY (R)
House (IL 13)
JUDY BIGGERT FOR CONGRESS
$500
general
07/16/98
RYAN, EDWARD P
HINSDALE, IL 60521
BURKE WEAVER & PRELL
BIGGERT, JUDY (R)
House (IL 13)
JUDY BIGGERT FOR CONGRESS
$250
primary
12/08/97

edward ryan » IL » Hinsdale

Contributor Candidate or PAC Amount Date FEC Filing
RYAN, EDWARD FRANCIS
Hinsdale, IL 60521
Holland & Knight/Lawyer
RYAN, EDWARD FRANCIS
Hinsdale, IL 60521
Holland & Knight/Lawyer
RYAN, EDWARD FRANCIS
Hinsdale, IL 60521
Holland & Knight/Lawyer
RYAN, EDWARD F
HINSDALE, IL 60521
HOLLAND & KNIGHT
RYAN, EDWARD F
HINSDALE, IL 60521
BURKE WEAVER & PRELLO
BIGGERT, JUDY (R)
House (IL 13)
JUDY BIGGERT FOR CONGRESS
$500
general
07/16/98
RYAN, EDWARD P
HINSDALE, IL 60521
BURKE WEAVER & PRELL
BIGGERT, JUDY (R)
House (IL 13)
JUDY BIGGERT FOR CONGRESS
$250
primary
12/08/97

Posted via email from Case Investigation