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. 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. 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. The IGs were not confident that OGC attorneys could provide independent advice consistent with their needs. These IGs are satisfied with the arrangements under which they obtain legal services. The three IGs are satisfied with their current arrangements. The grade levels of the OGC and OIG staff attorneys are also mixed. 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. 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. 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 receive and erode their independence.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the legal services provided to presidentially-appointed Inspectors General (IG), focusing on the independence of legal services provided to IG by agencies' offices of general counsel (OGC) compared with those legal services provided within Offices of Inspector General (OIG).

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) OGC attorneys may not provide independent legal advice due to pressure by senior OGC officials and concerns about their professional relations and career advancement; (2) since OGC-provided legal services could compromise the independence of IG investigations and audits, most IG have placed attorneys within their own offices; (3) 3 of the 5 IG that still depend on OGC attorneys have implemented memoranda of understanding with their general counsels that delineate IG independence, their attorneys' responsibilities, the handling of sensitive information, and other requirements such as IG concurrence in attorney selection, retention, and appraisal; (4) the 3 IG are satisfied with their legal arrangements and note that they have the option of moving their attorneys into their offices if the attorneys' independence becomes suspect; (5) the other 2 agency IG are not satisfied with their legal arrangements and are currently reviewing them; (6) the size and grade levels of IG legal staff, the scope and nature of their work, and their reliance on other agency attorneys varies depending on which office they are located in; and (7) there are no indications that OGC attorneys are less able to provide independent legal services than OIG attorneys.