SFO spending more on legal fees despite Government funding cuts
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) increased the proportion of funding it spends on legal fees by 31% between 2009 and 2012, despite the agency's overall budget being cut by more than a fifth in that time. In 2012 the independent Government department spent £4.5m on all legal fees, defined as a combination of counsel's fees, solicitor's fees and court fees for work on all criminal investigations and prosecutions, restraint and confiscation proceedings, and advisory matters.
November 14, 2013 at 07:03 PM
2 minute read
Agency's legal spend soared between 2009 and 2012 in face of 22% budget chop
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) increased the proportion of funding it spends on legal fees by 31% between 2009 and 2012, despite the agency's overall budget being cut by more than a fifth in that time.
In 2012 the independent Government department spent £4.5m on all legal fees, defined as a combination of counsel's fees, solicitor's fees and court fees for work on all criminal investigations and prosecutions, restraint and confiscation proceedings, and advisory matters.
The spend works out as 13% of its total budget of £34m. The fees for the year covered 42 separate cases, equating to roughly £107,000 per case. In 2009, the SFO's spend on legal fees was £4.4m, or 10.1% of the agency's annualised budget, which stood at £43.4m for the year.
Since then, annual spend on legal fees has risen each year, while the SFO's budget dropped by 22% to £34m between 2009 and 2012 when calculated on an annualised basis.
Since 2008 the largest amount spent on legal fees for one matter was £1.85m. During that period, the SFO led investigations into BAE Systems and Libor, and against the Tchenguiz brothers.
The figures, which came from a Freedom of Information Act request by Legal Week, do not include a breakdown of fees paid to individual law firms, chambers, barristers or solicitors.
When instructing members of the Bar on prosecution matters, the SFO operates a panel of QCs and a three-tier system of junior counsel.
Legal fees also include civil litigation for internal employment and human resources matters, but do not extend to payments of any costs made to other parties.
"You've got to look at what the general attitude has been with Government budgets," commented one senior source close to the SFO.
"[SFO director] David Green's (pictured) approach has been to focus on everything being quality assured, but obviously there is a tension within that, between hiring the best people and then using external counsel."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllApple Subsidiaries in Belgium and France Sued by DRC Over Conflict Minerals
2 minute readUS Wins Trade Dispute with Mexico Over Genetically Modified Corn
'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute readFreshfields Takes on Syria's Brutal Legacy, But Will Victims Ever See Compensation?
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250