Could a state commission reimburse legal fees after the Claims Commissioner and legislature had considered the same claim?

Plain-English summary

In March 1998, Connecticut’s AG concluded that the Criminal Justice Commission could not reimburse a State’s Attorney for legal fees after the same claim had been considered through the Claims Commissioner process. The fees arose from the attorney’s successful effort to obtain reappointment. The General Assembly had approved a limited payment on the Claims Commissioner’s recommendation; years later, the commission paid another reimbursement on the attorney’s request.

The AG read Conn. Gen. Stat. §4-148(c) as barring a claim already considered by the Claims Commissioner or General Assembly from being presented against the state again in another forum. Calling the later payment a commission reimbursement did not change the fact that it was the same underlying claim. The opinion agreed with the state auditors’ conclusion that the additional payment was excessive. A statutory rehearing route based on newly discovered evidence existed, but the opinion said that procedure was neither relevant nor used.

Commission members at the time

The opinion said the commission lacked authority to grant the additional fee reimbursement after the earlier claims proceeding.

State auditors and employees at the time

The AG treated the prior claims decision as controlling even though the claimant had not recovered the full amount sought. The statutory rehearing process did not supply an alternative basis for this payment.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could the attorney ask a different state commission for the unpaid part of his legal fees?
A: No. The AG concluded that §4-148(c) barred presenting the same claim again after the Claims Commissioner and legislature had considered it.

Q: Did the opinion say that every Claims Commissioner decision could be reheard?
A: No. It identified a procedure tied to new evidence, and said that procedure was not followed here.

Background and statutory framework

The state auditors questioned a commission payment made years after the legislature had approved a smaller award for the same legal expenses. The AG compared the two payments with the statute governing repeated claims against Connecticut.

Citations and references

Statutes: Conn. Gen. Stat. §4-148(c); Section 4-156.

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/1998-formal-opinions/john-m-bailey-esq-chief-states-attorney-1998003-formal-opinion-attorney-general-of-connecticut

Original opinion text

John M. Bailey, Esq, Chief State's Attorney, 1998-003 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal

March 18, 1998

John M. Bailey, Esq.

Chief State's Attorney

300 Corporate Place

Rocky Hill, CT 06067

Dear Attorney Bailey:

You have asked for my opinion with regard to a question raised by the state auditors on the propriety of an expenditure made by the Criminal Justice Commission. It is my understanding that your request was prompted by a recommendation made by the auditors, who concluded that it appeared that the Division's June 1996 reimbursement of legal fees to a State's Attorney in connection with his reappointment to that position in 1988 may have circumvented the intentions of the General Assembly with respect to the total monies approved for payment to the State's Attorney by the Claims Commissioner. For reasons explained below, it is my opinion that the Criminal Justice Commission's award is barred by the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. §4-148(c).

The documentation which you have provided to me reveals the following facts that are relevant to your inquiry. In 1988, the State's Attorney incurred $15,135 in attorney's fees in connection with his successful attempt to obtain reappointment to that position. Thereafter, the State's Attorney filed a claim against the state, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 53 of the Connecticut General Statutes, seeking reimbursement for the full amount of his attorney's fees. During the February 1990 Session of the General Assembly, the legislature accepted the Claims Commissioner's recommendation "that no award be granted to [the claimant] on his claim against the state in excess of seven thousand five hundred dollars". House Joint Resolution No. 29. The State's Attorney was therefore paid $7,500 by the Claims Commissioner pursuant to the General Assembly's action. On June 5, 1996, at the request of the State's Attorney, the Criminal Justice Commission voted to reimburse the State's Attorney an additional "$7,500 for expenses incurred for legal representation in connection with his previous appointment as State's Attorney". The State's Attorney thus received reimbursement totaling $15,000 as a result of these two awards.

Chapter 53 of the General Statutes (Conn. Gen. Stat. §4-141, et seq.) sets forth the procedure for bringing a claim against the State of Connecticut. Conn. Gen. Stat. §4-148(c) provides that "[n]o claim cognizable by the Claims Commissioner shall be presented against the state except under the provisions of this chapter. Except as provided in section 4-156,1 no claim once considered by the Claims Commissioner, by the General Assembly or in a judicial proceeding shall again be presented against the state in any manner." The clear language of §4-148(c) prohibits the presentation in any other forum of claims previously considered by the Claims Commissioner. In our opinion, the State's Attorney's claim, having previously been considered in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 53, could not lawfully have been presented to the Criminal Justice Commission and we therefore agree with the auditors' conclusion that "[a]n excess payment of $7,500 was made to the claimant."

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Margaret Q. Chapple

Assistant Attorney General

RB/MQC

Footnote:

1 Section 4-156 provides a detailed procedure for rehearing based on the discovery of new evidence, and is not relevant here and was not followed in this case.