United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Congress

March 1995 INSPECTORS

GENERAL

Independence of 

Legal Services

Provided 

to IGs

GAO/OGC-95-15

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

B-258857 

March 1, 1995

To the President of the Senate and the

Speaker of the House of Representatives

This report presents the results of our review of the independence of legal

services provided to Inspectors General (IGs) appointed by the President

under the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. The IG Act requires

IGs to audit and investigate their agencies’ programs and operations and

authorizes them to select, appoint, and employ such officers and

employees, including attorneys, as are necessary to carry out these duties.

Most presidentially appointed IGs initially obtained legal services to

support their work from their agencies’ Offices of General Counsel (OGCs),

and five IGs continue to do so.

These arrangements have raised questions about whether attorneys

located in an agency’s OGC can provide the independent legal services

necessary for an official who is statutorily required to independently

review that agency’s programs and operations. As a result, the Congress

required us to review the independence of legal services provided to

presidentially appointed IGs in section 6007 of Public Law 103-355, the

Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994. Specifically, our review

compared the independence of legal services provided to IGs by attorneys

located in agencies’ OGCs with those provided by attorneys located in

Offices of Inspector General (OIGs).

Results in Brief The IG Act of 1978, as amended, established OIGs in departments and

agencies to consolidate the audit and investigative functions of those

departments and agencies in an independent office under the leadership of

a senior official, the IG. The IG Act contains a number of provisions

designed to ensure that IGs carry out their responsibilities independently.

For example, under the act, IGs are not to report to those directly

responsible for carrying out the programs and activities subject to audit

and investigation, but rather to the agency head or, in the case of

presidentially appointed IGs, the official next in rank. In addition, with few

exceptions, neither the agency heads nor subordinates are to prevent or

prohibit IGs from initiating, carrying out, or completing any audit or

investigation. Thus, IGs are to be insulated from the interference of senior

officials, such as General Counsels.

Page 1 GAO/OGC-95-15 Inspector General Legal Services
B-258857 

Some IGs and attorneys in the IG community believe that IGs whose

attorneys are organizationally located in OGCs face the potential of

receiving legal advice based on the positions of General Counsels or senior

OGC officials and compromising their own independence on audits and

investigations with significant legal content or implications. Twenty-two of

the 27 IGs we surveyed have eliminated the issue of the independence of

the legal advice they receive and, by extension, their own independence by

placing attorneys in their own offices. In addition, the IGs have done so

with increasing frequency over the last 5 years. Some IGs changed the

location of their attorneys because they were not able to resolve to their

satisfaction specific problems with their arrangements with OGCs. Others

did so because of a policy or personal preference for having their primary

source of legal services located in the OIG rather than in their agencies’

OGC.

Five of the 27 IGs in our survey obtain legal services from attorneys located

in their agencies’ OGC. Three of the five—those at the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) and the Departments of Defense (DOD) and Health

and Human Services (HHS)—have implemented memoranda of

understanding (MOUs) with their agencies’ General Counsels and are

satisfied with their current arrangements. To alleviate the potential that

their attorneys’ organizational location will adversely affect the

independence of the advice the IGs receive and erode their independence,

the MOUs recognize the IGs’ independence and their attorneys’

responsibilities and include requirements such as IGs’ concurring in the

selection and appraisal of their principal legal advisors. The IGs at the

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of the

Treasury do not receive legal services from OGC attorneys under the

conditions that exist at the other three agencies. The FEMA IG is concerned

about some aspects of the arrangement under which legal services are

provided and plans to review the matter. The Treasury IG is not satisfied

with her current arrangement and is discussing the matter with Treasury

officials.

Finally, we found that the number and grade levels of the attorneys

providing legal services and the nature and scope of services provided

vary from office to office and are not necessarily related to the

organizational location of the attorneys. We also found that IGs’ attorneys,

whether located in OGCs or OIGs, obtain services from other agency

attorneys. Accordingly, our comparison of these characteristics for OGC

attorneys currently providing legal services to IGs with OIG attorneys

providing such services does not indicate that attorneys located in OGCs

Page 2 GAO/OGC-95-15 Inspector General Legal Services
B-258857 

are less able to provide independent legal services than those located in

OIGs.

Background Under the IG Act, OIGs are to provide agency heads and the Congress with

independent assessments of the management and operation of agencies

and their programs.1

 Specifically, the IGs’ mission is to audit and

investigate agency programs and operations with an eye toward

(1) promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness and (2) detecting

fraud, waste, and abuse.

The IG Act provides IGs with broad authority to hire employees with the

knowledge and skills needed to make the requisite assessments. The act

also grants IGs significant discretion regarding matters of OIG structure and

composition. The IGs initially obtained necessary audit and investigative

expertise from the internal auditors and investigators transferred to the

newly established OIGs and legal services from their agencies’ OGCs. Over

the years, presidentially appointed IGs have increasingly placed their

primary source of legal services in their own offices, and only five still

have principal legal advisors organizationally located in their agencies’

OGCs.

During consideration of the bill that became the Federal Acquisition

Streamlining Act of 1994, the Senate considered amending the IG Act to

require presidentially appointed IGs to place their attorneys in their own

offices. Proponents raised concerns about the independence of legal

advice provided to IGs by OGC attorneys and argued that reliance on such

attorneys compromises IGs’ independence. Others argued that IGs are best

able to determine how to obtain legal services and, thus, opposed

requiring IGs to place attorneys in their offices. A compromise measure,

which ultimately became section 6007 of the Federal Acquisition

Streamlining Act of 1994, requires us to review the independence of legal

services provided to IGs appointed by the President under the IG Act.

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

Consistent with section 6007 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act

of 1994, the objectives of our work were to (1) review the independence of

legal services being provided by OGC attorneys to IGs appointed by the

President under the IG Act and (2) compare the independence of these

legal services to those provided in agencies where the IG’s principal source

1

The Congress had established an OIG at the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1976

following disclosures of inadequacies in its internal audit and investigative procedures. The Congress

also established an OIG in the Department of Energy when it was created in 1977.

Page 3 GAO/OGC-95-15 Inspector General Legal Services
B-258857 

of legal advice is located in the OIG. Appendix I identifies the 27 OIGs

included in our review.2

We interviewed the five IGs whose principal legal advisors are located in

their agencies’ OGCs—those at DOD, EPA, FEMA, HHS, and Treasury—and

seven of the IGs whose principal legal advisors are located in OIGs—those

at the United States Information Agency (USIA) and the Departments of

Education, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Interior, Labor,

Transportation, and Veterans Affairs.3

 Our interviews focused on the role

of the IGs’ attorneys and their working relationships with the agencies’

OGCs, the extent of the IGs’ control over the activities of their attorneys,

and the framework in which legal services are provided.

In addition, to determine whether there are differences between the OGC

and OIG attorneys currently providing legal services to IGs that might

suggest that those located in OGCs are less able than those located in OIGs

to provide independent legal services, we used a questionnaire to gather

information from all 27 IGs on how IGs obtain legal services as well as on

the composition, supervision, and budgetary independence of the legal

staffs providing services to IGs; interviewed selected OIG staff and IGs’

principal legal advisors; and compared the mechanisms through which OGC

and OIG attorneys provide legal services. Finally, we obtained information

on the volume and nature of legal services provided to the IGs over the last

2 fiscal years and on the frequency and resolution of disagreements

between the IGs’ attorneys and other agency attorneys during this period.

We did not attempt to evaluate the quality of the legal services provided by

either OGC or OIG attorneys and therefore did not review legal products

prepared for IGs by either OGC or OIG attorneys.

Our work was performed in accordance with generally accepted

government auditing standards from November 1994 through

January 1995.

We discussed our findings and recommendations with the IGs at Treasury

and FEMA and have incorporated their comments where appropriate.

2

This review did not include IGs appointed by agency heads under the IG Act or the IG at the Central

Intelligence Agency (CIA), who is appointed by the President under the CIA’s authorizing legislation.

3

At the time of our review, the IG positions at the Departments of Defense and Interior were vacant,

and the IG at the Department of Transportation was on extended leave. At those departments, we

interviewed the Deputy IGs.

Page 4 GAO/OGC-95-15 Inspector General Legal Services
B-258857 

Organizational

Location of OGC

Attorneys Gives Rise

to Independence

Concerns

The General Counsel serves as an agency’s chief legal official and, as such,

advises the agency head and articulates the agency’s positions on legal

matters. The IG serves as an independent evaluator of the agency’s

programs and operations and reports on the evaluations to the agency

head and the Congress. Occasionally, attorneys advising the agency head

and those advising the IG may view legal issues differently. As a result, the

IG’s attorneys may be placed in the position of offering legal advice or

preparing opinions that differ from those of senior OGC officials, including

the General Counsel. When the differences cannot be resolved by the

staffs, or by the General Counsel and IG themselves, the IG may elevate

them to the agency head during the audit resolution process and require

further legal assistance.

Most of the officials we interviewed acknowledged the potential for IGs

whose attorneys are located in agencies’ OGCs to receive legal advice based

on the views of General Counsels or senior OGC officials and to

compromise their own independence on audits and investigations for

which legal services are significant.4

 These officials believe that actions

taken by senior OGC officials or the attorneys’ own concerns about such

matters as professional relationships or career advancement could make it

difficult for OGC attorneys to provide independent legal advice to the IG.

Further, we were told by some attorneys now located in OIGs that when

they were located in OGCs, they had felt pressure to conform their views to

positions favored by senior OGC officials. At one of the agencies in our

survey, we were told that OGC had once directed the IG’s attorney in writing

not to provide legal advice to the IG on a particular issue. At this agency,

the IG’s legal advisors are now located in the OIG.

Most IGs have eliminated concerns associated with their attorney’s

organizational location by placing their attorneys in the OIGs. Three of the

five IGs with OGC attorneys have implemented MOUs with their agencies’

General Counsels to alleviate the concerns associated with their attorneys’

organizational location. The remaining two IGs do not receive legal

services from OGC attorneys under the conditions existing at the other

three agencies and are not satisfied with their arrangements.

4

Federal attorneys are subject to rules of professional responsibility adopted by the states in which

they are admitted to practice. Some attorneys we interviewed specifically referred to such rules in

explaining that, wherever located, they would base their advice to the IG on their independent

professional judgment rather than on the position favored by the organizational unit in which they

were located.

Page 5 GAO/OGC-95-15 Inspector General Legal Services
B-258857 

IGs Have Increasingly

Used Authority Under

the IG Act to Place

Their Attorneys in

OIGs

The IG Act specifically authorizes IGs to select, appoint, and employ such

officers and employees as may be necessary for carrying out their

functions, powers, and duties. According to the legislative history, the act

provides such explicit authority because of the possibility that agencies

might deny IGs the authority to hire needed staff in order to hamper their

operations. The legislative history also clearly indicates that this broad

hiring authority applies to attorneys. Accordingly, IGs may obtain legal

services from OGC attorneys or from attorneys located in their own offices

at their discretion.

Our survey reveals a steady trend over the past decade toward IGs

obtaining legal services from attorneys located in their own offices. As

illustrated in appendix II, 33 percent of established OIGs obtained legal

services from attorneys located within the OIG in 1985, 58 percent in 1990,

and 81 percent—or 22 of 27—in 1994.

As illustrated in appendix III, the trend results from existing IGs changing

the location of their attorneys as well as from new IGs placing their

attorneys in their own offices. Of the nine IGs whose attorneys were

located in OGCs in 1980, six have changed the location of their attorneys

since 1990. In addition, of the five IGs whose offices were established

between 1990 and 1994, all but FEMA placed attorneys in their offices

within their first year of operation.

We interviewed the IGs at Education, HUD, Interior, Labor, Transportation,

USIA, and Veterans Affairs. At four of these seven agencies—Education,

Labor, Transportation, and USIA—the IGs changed the organizational

location of their primary source of legal services from OGC to the OIG

because of specific unsatisfactory experiences with their OGC

arrangements. The IGs were not confident that OGC attorneys could provide

independent advice consistent with their needs. At Interior, the attorneys

providing legal services to the IG were relocated to the OIG at the request of

the Solicitor who believed for management reasons that attorneys

providing legal services exclusively to the OIG should be located in that

office. Finally, newly appointed IGs at HUD and Veterans Affairs placed

their attorneys in the OIG in order to satisfy policy objectives or personal

preferences. These IGs are satisfied with the arrangements under which

they obtain legal services.

Page 6 GAO/OGC-95-15 Inspector General Legal Services
B-258857 

Three of the Five IGs

With OGC Attorneys

Have Taken Steps to

Alleviate Concerns

Associated With Their

Attorneys’ Location

Three IGs who obtain legal services from OGC attorneys—those at DOD, EPA,

and HHS—have implemented MOUs to alleviate the potential that their

attorneys’ location will limit the independence of the advice they receive

and affect their own independence. The three IGs are satisfied with their

current arrangements. These MOUs assert the independence of the OIG and

address the specific conditions from which the potential effects on

independence arise. They address personnel management responsibilities

including the selection and appraisal of attorneys, the protection of

sensitive information, and the provision of legal advice.

With respect to personnel, the three MOUs require the General Counsel to

establish a separate division within OGC so that attorneys providing legal

services to the IG do not also provide legal services to other agency

components. Several officials emphasized the importance of placing the IG

Division physically in or near the OIG rather than in OGC.

5

 To varying

degrees, they also require IG concurrence in the selection of the legal staff

and prohibit the transfer, reassignment, assignment of additional duties to,

or termination of such staff without IG concurrence. The three MOUs also

provide for IG involvement in performance appraisals. Under the HHS MOU,

the General Counsel is to seek the IG’s views on the principal legal

advisor’s annual performance evaluation and bonus. The DOD and EPA MOUs

provide that the principal legal advisor is to be evaluated by the General

Counsel with the concurrence of the IG.

The IGs at DOD, EPA, and HHS and their attorneys explained how the MOUs

have been implemented. Each agency’s OGC has a separate division

comprised of attorneys who provide legal services exclusively to the IG as

reflected, to varying degrees, in the position descriptions of the IGs’

principal legal advisors. The IGs at the three agencies also participate in

the selection and appraisal of their attorneys, consistent with the

provisions of their respective MOUs. For example, the DOD IG and General

Counsel jointly selected the IG’s current principal legal advisor, and the HHS

IG provides the General Counsel with an annual written appraisal of the

principal legal advisor’s performance.6

With respect to sensitive information, the MOUs in effect at the three

agencies authorize the IGs to limit their communication about particular

5

The OGC attorneys providing legal services to the IGs at DOD and HHS are located with the OIG

rather than with OGC. Due to space constraints, the EPA attorneys who provide legal services to the

IG are located neither with the OIG nor with most of their OGC colleagues.

6

The OIGs’ principal legal advisors are generally responsible for appraising the performance of their

staff attorneys and have done so without any interference by senior officials in OGC.

Page 7 GAO/OGC-95-15 Inspector General Legal Services
B-258857 

matters to their OGC attorneys where broader communication would

undermine or impair their function. The OGC attorneys providing legal

services to the IG are not to communicate any information received from

the OIG about such matters without specific authorization from the IG.

Finally, the MOUs in effect at DOD, EPA, and HHS contain provisions

addressing the relationship between the IGs and their attorneys and the

General Counsels and their staffs. The three MOUs provide for the IGs’

attorneys to seek the expertise of other attorneys who may be

knowledgeable about particular agency programs and activities. The MOUs

also contemplate that the IGs may disagree with opinions of the General

Counsels and that, if requested, the IGs’ attorneys will provide assistance

to the IGs under such circumstances. While the MOUs specify procedures

for the resolution of certain differences between the IGs’ attorneys and

other attorneys, they do not bind either the IGs or their attorneys to OGC’s

views.

For example, the MOU in effect at HHS provides that the IG is free to

disregard the General Counsel’s advice and that legal opinions provided by

the IG’s attorneys that conflict with the legal positions of the Department

are to state that they are solely the positions of the IG Division. The DOD

MOU states that if the IG disagrees with the General Counsel’s legal opinion

and requires assistance from the IG’s attorney, the attorney may provide

whatever legal assistance the IG requires to carry out IG responsibilities.7

Echoing the MOU, the position description for the DOD IG’s principal legal

advisor states that the attorney is to provide legal advice through the IG to

the most senior DOD officials on any aspect of the IG’s authority or

activities and on DOD’s programs and operations. While high-level

disagreements are infrequent, the OGC attorneys for the three IGs explained

that they have disagreed with their OGC colleagues and advised the IGs

accordingly.

Like the IGs whose principal legal advisors are in their own offices, the IGs

at DOD, EPA, and HHS are satisfied with their current arrangements. They

believe that these arrangements facilitate necessary communication with

OGC as well as the resolution of audit findings and do not believe that the

advice they receive is affected by their advisors’ organizational location.

They also emphasized that they would exercise their authority under the IG

Act to place their attorneys within the OIG if the independence of the legal

services they receive became suspect or if they otherwise became

dissatisfied.

7

The HHS and EPA MOUs contain nearly identical provisions.

Page 8 GAO/OGC-95-15 Inspector General Legal Services
B-258857 

Two IGs Are

Concerned About

OGC Arrangements

The IGs at FEMA and Treasury do not obtain legal services from OGC

attorneys under the conditions that exist at DOD, EPA, and HHS. In 1984, the

then nonstatutory IG and General Counsel of FEMA signed an MOU similar to

those currently in effect at DOD, EPA, and HHS. However, this MOU was not

implemented. The position description for the IG’s current principal legal

advisor, a GS-14 attorney, includes providing assistance to the IG as only

one of a myriad of duties to be performed in support of FEMA’s activities.

Moreover, the attorney’s performance plan characterizes the duties in

support of the IG—serving as OGC’s liaison and central clearing point for

OIG matters—as “noncritical.” Consistent with the position description, the

attorney provides limited services to the IG. Accordingly, OIG staff regularly

obtain legal services from program attorneys. The current IG told us that

he is dissatisfied with this arrangement. He told us that he would consider

hiring an OIG attorney, particularly to provide experienced legal support to

OIG investigators, if a GS-15 level position were vacant. In addition, he

plans to discuss with the General Counsel an MOU that would ensure that

dedicated attorneys are available to meet his needs and that appropriate

safeguards to independence are in place.

While the OGC attorneys from whom the Treasury IG obtains legal services

are dedicated exclusively to the IG and are physically located near the OIG,

there is no MOU in effect to address concerns associated with the attorneys’

organizational location. Further, the position description for the IG’s

principal legal advisor, which predates the establishment of a statutory IG

at Treasury, contains language suggesting that the independence of the

legal services provided to the IG could be limited. The IG believes that her

selection and appraisal of a principal legal advisor are essential elements

of a satisfactory arrangement. She is dissatisfied with the current

arrangement. The Treasury IG told us that she and the General Counsel

have agreed on the outlines of an MOU and will continue to discuss the

matter.

Government Auditing

Standards Allow

Different Approaches

for Obtaining Legal

Services

The professional standards applicable to IGs do not require them to select

one method of obtaining legal services over another and do not preclude

different arrangements that reflect IGs’ preferences. Government Auditing

Standards8 require auditors and audit organizations to be independent and

to maintain an independent attitude and appearance so that opinions,

conclusions, judgments, and recommendations will be impartial and will

be viewed as such by third parties. To this end, they also require auditors

8

The IG Act requires IGs to comply with Government Auditing Standards in carrying out their duties

and responsibilities.

Page 9 GAO/OGC-95-15 Inspector General Legal Services
B-258857 

to evaluate whether evidence is sufficient, competent, and relevant to

afford a reasonable basis for findings and conclusions. An auditor’s

approach to determining the sufficiency, competence, and relevance of

evidence depends on the source of that evidence. In considering whether

to rely on an attorney’s work, an auditor considers the attorney’s

qualifications and independence, both personal and organizational.

Twenty-five of the 27 IGs in our survey currently obtain legal services in

the manner they prefer. Having their primary source of legal services in

the OIG helps to provide 22 IGs with confidence that their reliance on the

legal advice they receive will not compromise their independence. The

requirements and conditions contained in the MOUs at DOD, EPA, and HHS

help to provide those IGs with similar confidence. In the final analysis, the

IGs, under governing standards, must determine whether to rely on the

legal advice they receive.

Composition and

Duties of Legal Staffs

Vary From Office to

Office

During our review, we gathered information on the composition and duties

of the legal staffs currently providing services to IGs to determine whether

those located in OGCs differ as a group from those located in OIGs. As

shown in appendix IV, the size of legal staffs supporting IGs, both in

isolation and in comparison to total OIG staff, bears no relation to the

location of the attorneys. The size of legal staffs varies from 1 to 19

attorneys. The median number of attorneys providing services to IGs is

three. The ratio of attorneys to total OIG staff also varies widely, with no

widespread correlation between the ratio and the location of the IG’s

attorneys. Likewise, we found that there is no distinguishable difference

between the grade levels of principal legal advisors located in OGCs and

those in the OIGs. In the five agencies at which OGC attorneys provide legal

services to the OIG, three (60 percent) of the principal legal advisors are in

the Senior Executive Service, one is a GS-15, and one is a GS-14. In the 22

agencies where OIG attorneys provide such services, 15 of the principal

legal advisors (68 percent) are in the Senior Executive Service and 7 are

GS-15s. The grade levels of the OGC and OIG staff attorneys are also mixed.

Appendix V contains data on the grades of the legal staffs providing

services to IGs.

We also found that the nature and scope of the legal services provided to

the IGs vary from office to office and are not necessarily related to the

location of the attorneys. We found that IGs routinely ask their attorneys to

interpret federal laws and regulations and to advise OIG staff on issues

arising during audits and investigations. In agencies with programs that

Page 10 GAO/OGC-95-15 Inspector General Legal Services
B-258857 

are particularly susceptible to fraud, the IGs are more likely to also ask

their attorneys to prepare subpoenas, assist Assistant United States

Attorneys with criminal litigation, and help negotiate settlements.

Regardless of attorney location, IGs and their attorneys recognize that they

may benefit from the assistance of other agency attorneys with expertise

in particular programs. In fact, some IGs with OIG attorneys have formal

agreements with their agencies’ General Counsels that provide for such

assistance. While IGs’ attorneys and other agency attorneys generally enjoy

cooperative relationships, differences of opinion occasionally arise.

However, IGs reported few differences between IGs’ attorneys, wherever

located, and senior agency attorneys during the past 2 fiscal years.

Differences between attorneys were usually resolved at the staff level.

Further, several IGs told us that compliance issues often arose during the

audit resolution process not as differences between lawyers but as

disputes between the IGs and program officials over particular facts or the

application of such facts to governing law.

The way in which IGs use attorneys, wherever located, appears largely to

reflect the personalities and preferences of the individual IGs. For

example, several IGs use their principal legal advisors as counselors on

policy and management issues. Although most of the IGs who emphasized

this role during our interviews obtain legal services from OIG attorneys,

some IGs’ OGC attorneys also serve in this role to some degree. Further, two

IGs explained circumstances in which OIG staff who were attorneys, but not

part of the legal staff, provided some legal services. Another IG whose

principal legal advisor is in the OIG even suggested that as long as an IG has

someone in the OIG qualified to provide legal advice and counsel,

particularly on sensitive matters, the organizational location of the

attorneys who provide routine legal services to OIG staff is itself of little

consequence.

Conclusions There is concern that IGs whose attorneys are organizationally located in

agencies’ OGCs will not always receive independent legal advice and that

their own independence will be compromised as a result. Twenty-two of

the 27 IGs in our survey have eliminated the issues associated with their

attorneys’ organizational location by placing attorneys in their own offices

under the authority of the IG Act. Three of the five IGs who obtain legal

services from OGC attorneys have implemented MOUs, which include

requirements for IG concurrence in the selection and appraisal of their

principal legal advisors, to alleviate the potential that their attorneys’

location will adversely affect the independence of the advice the IGs

Page 11 GAO/OGC-95-15 Inspector General Legal Services
B-258857 

receive and erode their independence. The IGs at FEMA and Treasury do not

obtain legal services from OGC attorneys under the conditions that exist at

DOD, EPA, and HHS.

In addition, we found no evidence from which to conclude that the

composition and duties of the legal staffs providing services to the 27 IGs

are significantly different based on their organizational location. We also

found that the composition and duties of the IGs’ legal staffs largely reflect

the preferences of individual IGs. Accordingly, our comparison of the

composition and duties of OGC attorneys advising IGs and OIG attorneys

does not indicate that attorneys located in OGCs are less able than those

located in OIGs to provide independent legal services to IGs.

Recommendations To help ensure that the IGs at FEMA and Treasury receive independent legal

services, we recommend that they either locate their principal legal

advisors within their offices or implement MOUs with their agencies’

General Counsels containing, at a minimum, the requirements and

conditions, including participation in the selection and appraisal of the

principal legal advisor, in the MOUs in effect at DOD, EPA, and HHS.

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairmen and Ranking

Minority Members of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and

the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. Copies are

also being provided to Senator Charles Grassley, the Director of the Office

of Management and Budget, the Inspectors General of the agencies

included in our review, and other interested parties.

This report was prepared under the direction of Jeffrey A. Jacobson,

Assistant General Counsel, who may be reached on (202)512-8261. Major

contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI.

Charles A. Bowsher

Comptroller General

of the United States

Page 12 GAO/OGC-95-15 Inspector General Legal Services
Page 13 GAO/OGC-95-15 Inspector General Legal Services
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

OIGs Included in

GAO’s Review

16

Appendix II 

Percentage of IGs

With OIG Attorneys

17

Appendix III 

Calendar Years in

Which IGs Were First

Appointed and OIGs

First Employed

Attorneys

18

Appendix IV 

Comparison of

Attorney and Total

OIG Staff as of

September 30, 1994

19

Appendix V 

Grade Levels of

Attorneys Providing

Legal Services to IGs

as of September 30,

1994

21

Page 14 GAO/OGC-95-15 Inspector General Legal Services
Contents

Appendix VI 

Major Contributors to

This Report

23

Abbreviations

AID Agency for International Development

CIA Central Intelligence Agency

CNCS Corporation for National and Community Service

DOD Department of Defense

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

FTE full-time equivalent

GAO General Accounting Office

GSA General Services Administration

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

IG Inspector General

MOU memorandum of understanding

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission

OGC Office of General Counsel

OIG Office of Inspector General

OPM Office of Personnel Management

RTC Resolution Trust Corporation

SBA Small Business Administration

SES senior executive service

USIA United States Information Agency

Page 15 GAO/OGC-95-15 Inspector General Legal Services
Appendix I 

OIGs Included in GAO’s Review

Agency for International Development

Corporation for National and Community Service

Department of Agriculture

Department of Commerce

Department of Defense

Department of Education

Department of Energy

Department of Health and Human Services

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Department of the Interior

Department of Justice

Department of Labor

Department of State

Department of Transportation

Department of the Treasury

Department of Veterans Affairs

Environmental Protection Agency

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Federal Emergency Management Agency

General Services Administration

National Space and Aeronautics Administration

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Personnel Management

Railroad Retirement Board

Resolution Trust Corporation

Small Business Administration

United States Information Agency

Page 16 GAO/OGC-95-15 Inspector General Legal Services
Appendix II 

Percentage of IGs With OIG Attorneys

Percentage

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

As of

1980

As of

1985

As of

1990

As of

1994

36

33

58

81

Page 17 GAO/OGC-95-15 Inspector General Legal Services
Appendix III 

Calendar Years in Which IGs Were First

Appointed and OIGs First Employed

Attorneys

Note: The Foreign Service Act of 1980 established an Inspector General of the Department of

State and the Foreign Service. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1986 and

1987 amended the IG Act to bring the Department under the act. One year later, the position of

Inspector General of the Department of State and the Foreign Service was abolished.

Page 18 GAO/OGC-95-15 Inspector General Legal Services
Appendix IV 

Comparison of Attorney and Total OIG Staff

as of September 30, 1994

Agency

Attorney

location

Number of

attorneys

Total OIG

staffa

Agency for International Development OIG 3 245

Corporation for National and Community

Service

OIG 1 11

Department of Agriculture OIG 2 821

Department of Commerce OIG 7 189

Department of Defense OGC 7 1569

Department of Education OIG 3 344

Department of Energy OIG 2 358

Department of Health and Human Services OGC 19b 1252

Department of Housing and Urban

Development

OIG 2 484

Department of the Interior OIG 2 303

Department of Justice OIG 3 331

Department of Labor OIG 5c 475

Department of State OIG 5 261

Department of Transportation OIG 1d 461

Department of the Treasury OGC 4e 292

Department of Veterans Affairs OIG 3 397

Environmental Protection Agency OGC 4 435

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation OIG 3 190

Federal Emergency Management Agency OGC 1 53

General Services Administration OIG 7 387

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

OIG 2 192

Nuclear Regulatory Commission OIG 2 46

Office of Personnel Management OIG 2 113

Railroad Retirement Board OIG 1 92

Resolution Trust Corporation OIG 5 285

Small Business Administration OIG 2c 96

United States Information Agency OIG 1 53

(Table notes on next page)

Page 19 GAO/OGC-95-15 Inspector General Legal Services
Appendix IV 

Comparison of Attorney and Total OIG Staff

as of September 30, 1994

aTotal OIG Staff size is in actual full-time equivalents (FTEs). One FTE is equal to 1 work year, or

2,080 hours. Total attorney staff size is in actual number of attorneys.

bFour additional attorneys are located in the OIG and assist the OIG’s Office of Civil Fraud and

Administrative Adjudications in negotiating settlements in administrative sanctions cases. Three of

the 19 attorneys are part-time and one was on extended maternity leave.

cIn addition to providing legal services to the OIGs at the Department of Labor and the Small

Business Administration, the SES positions included in these numbers also have OIG

management responsibilities.

dThis attorney was hired on October 17, 1994.

eThis total includes two full-time GS-15s, one part-time GS-14, and one part-time GS-13. The OGC

attorneys that provide legal services to the IG at the Department of the Treasury fill FTEs allocated

to the OIG.

Page 20 GAO/OGC-95-15 Inspector General Legal Services
Appendix V 

Grade Levels of Attorneys Providing Legal

Services to IGs as of September 30, 1994

Attorney Grades

Agency

Attorney

location SES GS-15s

GS-14 and

below

Agency for International Development OIG 1 1 1

Corporation for National and Community

Service

OIG 1

Department of Agriculture OIG 1 1

Department of Commerce OIG 1 1 5

Department of Defense OGC 1 6

Department of Education OIG 1 2

Department of Energy OIG 1 1

Department of Health and Human Services OGCa 2 5 12b

Department of Housing and Urban

Development

OIG 1 1

Department of Interior OIG 1 1

Department of Justice OIG 1 1 1

Department of Labor OIG 1c 2 2

Department of State OIG 1 2 2

Department of Transportationd OIG 1

Department of the Treasury OGC 2 2e

Department of Veterans Affairs OIG 1 1 1

Environmental Protection Agency OGC 1 1 2

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation OIG 1 1 1

Federal Emergency Management Agency OGC 1

General Services Administration OIG 1 2 4

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

OIG 1 1

Nuclear Regulatory Commission OIG 1f 1

Office of Personnel Management OIG 1 1

Railroad Retirement Board OIG 1

Resolution Trust Corporation OIG 1 1 3

Small Business Administration OIG 1c 1

United States Information Agency OIG 1

Totals 19 35 45

(Table notes on next page)

Page 21 GAO/OGC-95-15 Inspector General Legal Services
Appendix V 

Grade Levels of Attorneys Providing Legal

Services to IGs as of September 30, 1994

aOne additional GS-15 and three additional GS-14 attorneys are employed in OIG’s Office of Civil

Fraud and Administrative Adjudication.

bThree attorneys are part time and one was on extended maternity leave.

cIn addition to providing legal services to the IGs at the Department of Labor and the Small

Business Administration, these SES-level attorneys have OIG management responsibilities.

dThe IG at the Department of Transportation hired an attorney on October 17, 1994.

eBoth of these attorneys are part time.

f

This position is equivalent to an SES position and is classified as a “Senior Level System” position

within the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Page 22 GAO/OGC-95-15 Inspector General Legal Services
Appendix VI 

Major Contributors to This Report

Office of the General

Counsel

Helen T. Desaulniers, Senior Attorney

Accounting and

Information

Management Division,

Washington, D.C.

Sharon O. Byrd, Senior Auditor

Jackson W. Hufnagle, Assistant Director

Clarence A. Whitt, Senior Accountant

Charles W. Woodward, Senior Evaluator

(996210) Page 23 GAO/OGC-95-15 Inspector General Legal Services
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100
GAO/OGC-95-15 Inspector General Legal Services