Audit 35681

Finding No. 2022-001 (LSC Basic Field Grant, CFDA No. 09.447061): Condition ? A required written statement of facts was not obtained for one of the cases that were tested for compliance. Criteria ? Whenever a recipient of LSC funds files a complaint in a court of law or otherwise initiates or participates in litigation against a defendant, or before a recipient engages in pre-complaint settlement negotiations with a prospective defendant on behalf of a client who has authorized it to file suit in the event that the settlement negotiations are unsuccessful, the recipient shall prepare a dated written statement signed by each plaintiff it represents, enumerating the particular facts supporting the complaint, insofar as they are known to the plaintiff when the statement is signed. Cause ? Policies and procedures are in place to routinely remind all personnel of LSC?s rules regulations for obtaining written statements of facts when required. During the intake process for the case, it was determined that the case would be referred to a private attorney for handling on a pro bono basis and, because of this referral, a checklist was completed appropriately indicating that the statement of facts was not applicable. However, after such referral and for various reasons, the case was brought back in-house for handling by a Society advocate and which subsequently resulted in a court filing requiring the statement of facts which was not obtained. It does not appear that this failure to obtain the required statement of facts was intentional but was primarily the result of the unusual and infrequent nature of the case, i.e., the original assignment of the case to a pro bono attorney and subsequent bringing it back inhouse at which time it was noted that the checklist had already been completed and, therefore, another opening checklist was not completed which may have alerted the responsible advocate that a statement of facts was required. Effect ? During the year ended June 30, 2022, there was a violation of LSC?s rules and regulations. Context ? Not applicable. Although the aforementioned condition was noted during the testing of sampled cases, it could not be projected to the remaining population of untested cases because of the aforementioned described unusual and infrequent nature of the case. Furthermore, and because of the same unusual and infrequent nature of the case, testing could not be extended to cases with similar characteristics. Recommendation ? Although cases of this nature are very infrequent, it is suggested that the Society review its internal control policies and procedures to determine if they might be revised to assist in the possible prevention of future occurrences. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions ? Please refer to the accompanying Corrective Action Plan of Virginia Legal Aid Society, Inc.

Finding No. 2022-001 (LSC Basic Field Grant, CFDA No. 09.447061): Condition ? A required written statement of facts was not obtained for one of the cases that were tested for compliance. Criteria ? Whenever a recipient of LSC funds files a complaint in a court of law or otherwise initiates or participates in litigation against a defendant, or before a recipient engages in pre-complaint settlement negotiations with a prospective defendant on behalf of a client who has authorized it to file suit in the event that the settlement negotiations are unsuccessful, the recipient shall prepare a dated written statement signed by each plaintiff it represents, enumerating the particular facts supporting the complaint, insofar as they are known to the plaintiff when the statement is signed. Cause ? Policies and procedures are in place to routinely remind all personnel of LSC?s rules regulations for obtaining written statements of facts when required. During the intake process for the case, it was determined that the case would be referred to a private attorney for handling on a pro bono basis and, because of this referral, a checklist was completed appropriately indicating that the statement of facts was not applicable. However, after such referral and for various reasons, the case was brought back in-house for handling by a Society advocate and which subsequently resulted in a court filing requiring the statement of facts which was not obtained. It does not appear that this failure to obtain the required statement of facts was intentional but was primarily the result of the unusual and infrequent nature of the case, i.e., the original assignment of the case to a pro bono attorney and subsequent bringing it back inhouse at which time it was noted that the checklist had already been completed and, therefore, another opening checklist was not completed which may have alerted the responsible advocate that a statement of facts was required. Effect ? During the year ended June 30, 2022, there was a violation of LSC?s rules and regulations. Context ? Not applicable. Although the aforementioned condition was noted during the testing of sampled cases, it could not be projected to the remaining population of untested cases because of the aforementioned described unusual and infrequent nature of the case. Furthermore, and because of the same unusual and infrequent nature of the case, testing could not be extended to cases with similar characteristics. Recommendation ? Although cases of this nature are very infrequent, it is suggested that the Society review its internal control policies and procedures to determine if they might be revised to assist in the possible prevention of future occurrences. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions ? Please refer to the accompanying Corrective Action Plan of Virginia Legal Aid Society, Inc.