Home Part of States Newsroom
News
Attorney general’s office failed to track, monitor millions in outside legal contracts

Share

Attorney general’s office failed to track, monitor millions in outside legal contracts

Oct 20, 2026 | 8:35 pm ET
Attorney general’s office failed to track, monitor millions in outside legal contracts
Description
Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown (D) told auditors his agency is working to implement better systems for tracking and monitoring contracts for outside law firms, but that effort may not be completed before the end of 2027. (File photo Bryan P. Sears/Maryland Matters)

State auditors are calling for tighter controls and monitoring of outside law firms hired by state agencies, after finding a lack of procedures in the attorney general’s office make it difficult to track millions paid to nearly 100 firms.

The 26-page review of the Office of the Attorney General by the Office of Legislative Audits also found the agency paid nearly $2 million for a case management system that has yet to be fully implemented as required by the now-expired contract.

“OAG did not have adequate procedures and controls for the procurement and use of outside counsel by State agencies, resulting in the inability to properly budget, track, and monitor related payments,” auditors noted in their report.

In a letter to auditors, Attorney General Anthony Brown agreed with the findings and said his office was committed to “corrective actions.” But in more detailed responses to the report, the agency noted hurdles remain an impediment to resolving the findings.

The audit, released Tuesday, reviewed contracts with outside firms between June 2022 and May 2026. Auditors identified 120 contracts awarded to 97 outside law firms totaling nearly $63 million, an amount equal to roughly 70% of the $86 million fiscal 2025 budget for the attorney general’s office.

Attorney general’s office failed to track, monitor millions in outside legal contracts
Nearly $40 million in fees to outside legal counsel was paid by five state agencies, according to a recent audit, that found the attorney general’s office failed at tracking and monitoring those expenses. (Source: Office of Legislative Audits)

The costs of those contracts run in the tens of millions of dollars. Auditors said $63 million was paid to 54 of the 97 outside firms hired. Five agencies combined for more than 60% of the legal fees auditors tracked.

Auditors, in the report, cautioned that the full extent of legal payments is unknown.

Some agencies paid for services provided to a different government entity. Other payments were not recorded in the state’s accounting system. Those payments are not reflected in some of the auditor’s calculations.

“As a result of these conditions, we could not determine the total fees paid to outside counsel for the services used by each agency or identify the total claims/settlements paid,” auditors note in the report.

Brown’s office, in a detailed response, said efforts to improve management and tracking of outside law firms are “ongoing.” Part of that effort includes the creation of “repository of all” outside contracts. That effort, started roughly three years ago, is expected to be completed by the end of 2027.

But the office said it lacks “the necessary authority or tools to oversee, track, or monitor the payment processing of invoices for outside counsel services by our client agencies.” It said it would issue guidance to state agencies on tracking and monitoring contracts and recording payments by the end of next year.

In another finding, auditors noted that the agency spent $1.8 million for a case management system that was not fully implemented before the contract expired in June 2025.

Auditors faulted the agency for “failing to obtain critical information required by the contract (such as weekly status reports) to monitor the vendor’s progress.”

The report noted that the attorney general’s office did not disclose “ongoing vendor issues” to the Board of Public Works when it sought approval of a renewal option. The board approved the extension at a cost of $475,000. Auditors said the amount should have been withheld until the system was fully implemented.

“This is significant because as of April 2026, approximately one year after the contract ended (and 7 years after the original estimated implementation date), the system has not been implemented in one division and was only partially implemented in another,” auditors wrote.

The finding was noted in an earlier audit in which the agency vowed to resolve the issues by June 2023.