2022-001 Retainer Agreements Legal Services Corporation ALN#09.233100 Criteria: Legal Services Corporation (LSC) Reg. #1611.9.a Financial Eligibility section 9 Retainer agreements requires that when an LSC grant recipient provides extended service to a client, the recipient shall execute a written retainer agreement with the client when representation commences or as soon thereafter as is practicable. Condition: A retainer agreement was not executed for one extended service case and a retainer agreement for another case was not maintained in file. These cases were open prior to 2022 that remained open or closed in 2022. Cause: The policy related to the retainer agreement was not appropriately applied by the employee. For the case where the retainer agreement was not in file, the retainer agreement was misplaced. The employee who handled the case already left Legal Services NYC. Effect: Noncompliance with LSC regulations could impact future funding level. Context: Out of sixty (60) LSC cases selected for eligibility testing, ? A retainer was not executed for one (1) extensive service case. ? A retainer agreement for one (1) case could not be located. However, there is a case note written by the former employee who handled the case documented that the retainer agreement was obtained. Questioned costs: There are no questioned costs noted. Recommendation: We recommend that Legal Services NYC continue to provide relevant trainings to the employees who handle client intake regarding the maintenance of retainer agreements.
Legal Services Corporation ALN#09.233100 Criteria: Per LSC Reg.# 1611.2(d) Definition of Assets, ?Assets? means cash or other resources of the applicant or members of the applicant?s household that are readily convertible to cash, which are currently and actually available to the applicant. Condition: A few instances were noted during LSC case file testing, where recorded asset considered for financial eligibility determination did not meet the asset definition as per the LSC regulation. These cases were open prior to 2022 that remained open or closed in 2022. Cause: Certain assets including 401K fund and primary residence were incorrectly reported as assets. These assets should be excluded when determining the financial eligibility as per LSC Reg.#1611.2(d). Effect: Incorrect or incomplete financial eligibility documentation may result in improperly including or excluding clients from receiving services under the LSC program. Context: Out of sixty (60) LSC cases selected for testing, three (3) cases were reported as having an asset above ceiling ($25,000). However, the reported assets did not meet the definition of assets as per LSC Reg.# 1611.2(d). These program clients were indeed financially eligible but the asset classification in Legal Server was not accurate and did not support the eligibility conclusion. Questioned costs: There are no questioned costs noted. Recommendation: We recommend that Legal Services NYC continue to provide relevant trainings to the employees who handle client intake regarding financial eligibility.
2022-003 Waiver of asset ceilings Legal Services Corporation ALN#09.233100 Criteria: Per LSC Reg.# 1611.3.d Financial eligibility policies, (1) As part of its financial eligibility policies, every recipient shall establish reasonable asset ceilings for individuals and households. In establishing asset ceilings, the recipient may exclude consideration of a household?s principal residence, vehicles used for transportation, assets used in producing income, and other assets which are exempt from attachment under State or Federal law. (2) The recipient?s policies may provide authority for waiver of its asset ceilings for specific applicants under unusual circumstances and when approved by the recipient?s Executive Director, Project Director, or his/her designee. When the asset ceiling is waived, the recipient shall record the reasons for such waiver and shall keep such records as are necessary to inform the Corporation of the reasons for such waiver. Per Legal Services NYC policy, asset ceiling is $25,000. Condition: A couple of instances were noted during LSC case file testing, where waiver approvals of asset ceilings were not obtained. These cases were open prior to 2022 that remained open or closed in 2022. Cause: For one instance, the case information was correctly entered in the case management system. However, the advocate did not complete or click ?continue? in the system. As a result, the system did not capture the financial information that would indicate that the case is not LSC eligible. For another instance noted, the intake paralegal did not obtain an approval for the asset override. Effect: Incorrect or incomplete financial eligibility documentation may result in improperly including or excluding clients from receiving services under the LSC program. Context: Out of sixty (60) LSC cases selected for testing, a waiver approval of asset ceilings for two (2) cases was not obtained. Questioned costs: There are no questioned costs noted. Recommendation: We recommend that Legal Services NYC continue to provide relevant trainings to the employees who handle client intake regarding maintenance of asset ceiling waiver approvals.
2022-001 Retainer Agreements Legal Services Corporation ALN#09.233100 Criteria: Legal Services Corporation (LSC) Reg. #1611.9.a Financial Eligibility section 9 Retainer agreements requires that when an LSC grant recipient provides extended service to a client, the recipient shall execute a written retainer agreement with the client when representation commences or as soon thereafter as is practicable. Condition: A retainer agreement was not executed for one extended service case and a retainer agreement for another case was not maintained in file. These cases were open prior to 2022 that remained open or closed in 2022. Cause: The policy related to the retainer agreement was not appropriately applied by the employee. For the case where the retainer agreement was not in file, the retainer agreement was misplaced. The employee who handled the case already left Legal Services NYC. Effect: Noncompliance with LSC regulations could impact future funding level. Context: Out of sixty (60) LSC cases selected for eligibility testing, ? A retainer was not executed for one (1) extensive service case. ? A retainer agreement for one (1) case could not be located. However, there is a case note written by the former employee who handled the case documented that the retainer agreement was obtained. Questioned costs: There are no questioned costs noted. Recommendation: We recommend that Legal Services NYC continue to provide relevant trainings to the employees who handle client intake regarding the maintenance of retainer agreements.
Legal Services Corporation ALN#09.233100 Criteria: Per LSC Reg.# 1611.2(d) Definition of Assets, ?Assets? means cash or other resources of the applicant or members of the applicant?s household that are readily convertible to cash, which are currently and actually available to the applicant. Condition: A few instances were noted during LSC case file testing, where recorded asset considered for financial eligibility determination did not meet the asset definition as per the LSC regulation. These cases were open prior to 2022 that remained open or closed in 2022. Cause: Certain assets including 401K fund and primary residence were incorrectly reported as assets. These assets should be excluded when determining the financial eligibility as per LSC Reg.#1611.2(d). Effect: Incorrect or incomplete financial eligibility documentation may result in improperly including or excluding clients from receiving services under the LSC program. Context: Out of sixty (60) LSC cases selected for testing, three (3) cases were reported as having an asset above ceiling ($25,000). However, the reported assets did not meet the definition of assets as per LSC Reg.# 1611.2(d). These program clients were indeed financially eligible but the asset classification in Legal Server was not accurate and did not support the eligibility conclusion. Questioned costs: There are no questioned costs noted. Recommendation: We recommend that Legal Services NYC continue to provide relevant trainings to the employees who handle client intake regarding financial eligibility.
2022-003 Waiver of asset ceilings Legal Services Corporation ALN#09.233100 Criteria: Per LSC Reg.# 1611.3.d Financial eligibility policies, (1) As part of its financial eligibility policies, every recipient shall establish reasonable asset ceilings for individuals and households. In establishing asset ceilings, the recipient may exclude consideration of a household?s principal residence, vehicles used for transportation, assets used in producing income, and other assets which are exempt from attachment under State or Federal law. (2) The recipient?s policies may provide authority for waiver of its asset ceilings for specific applicants under unusual circumstances and when approved by the recipient?s Executive Director, Project Director, or his/her designee. When the asset ceiling is waived, the recipient shall record the reasons for such waiver and shall keep such records as are necessary to inform the Corporation of the reasons for such waiver. Per Legal Services NYC policy, asset ceiling is $25,000. Condition: A couple of instances were noted during LSC case file testing, where waiver approvals of asset ceilings were not obtained. These cases were open prior to 2022 that remained open or closed in 2022. Cause: For one instance, the case information was correctly entered in the case management system. However, the advocate did not complete or click ?continue? in the system. As a result, the system did not capture the financial information that would indicate that the case is not LSC eligible. For another instance noted, the intake paralegal did not obtain an approval for the asset override. Effect: Incorrect or incomplete financial eligibility documentation may result in improperly including or excluding clients from receiving services under the LSC program. Context: Out of sixty (60) LSC cases selected for testing, a waiver approval of asset ceilings for two (2) cases was not obtained. Questioned costs: There are no questioned costs noted. Recommendation: We recommend that Legal Services NYC continue to provide relevant trainings to the employees who handle client intake regarding maintenance of asset ceiling waiver approvals.