UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE D.C. CIRCUIT


IN RE: SAMUEL R. PIERCE, JR.


89-0005i

D.C. Cir. 2000


*	*	*


Opinion for the Special Court filed PER CURIAM.


PER CURIAM: The law firm of Battle Fowler petitions  this court under
Section 593(f) of the Ethics in Government  Act of 1978, as amended,
28 U.S.C. s 591 et seq. (1994) (the  "Act"), for reimbursement of
attorneys' fees in the amount of  $373,004.48 that it incurred during
and as a result of the  investigation conducted by Independent
Counsels ("IC") Arlin  M. Adams and Larry D. Thompson. Because we
conclude  that the petition was filed inexcusably late, we deny the 
petition in its entirety.


In 1981 Samuel R. Pierce, Jr. began an eight year term as  Secretary of
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban  Development ("HUD"). Prior
to his appointment, Pierce was  a senior partner at the law firm of
Battle Fowler, the fee  petitioner here.


In 1988, an audit by HUD's Inspector General triggered  congressional
investigations into abuses, favoritism, and mis-


management at HUD during the 1980s under Pierce's tenure.  Based on
information elicited during the congressional inves- tigations, the
House Judiciary Committee wrote to Attorney  General Richard
Thornburgh seeking the appointment of an  independent counsel to
investigate the matter. Following a  preliminary investigation,
Attorney General Thornburgh ap- plied to this court for appointment of
an independent counsel.  On March 1, 1990, we appointed former United
States Circuit  Judge Arlin Adams1 as independent counsel "to
investigate  ... whether Samuel R. Pierce, Jr., and other [HUD]
officials  may have committed the crime of conspiracy to defraud the 
United States or any other Federal crimes ... relating to the 
administration of the selection process of the Department's  Moderate
Rehabilitation Program from 1984 through 1988."  Order Appointing
Independent Counsel, March 1, 1990. The  IC's mandate was expanded
several times thereafter, includ- ing an expansion to investigate any
dealings among Pierce  and Battle Fowler during this same time


The IC conducted a comprehensive investigation ultimately  confirming a
widespread pattern of corruption at HUD dur- ing Pierce's tenure.
Although the IC announced on January  11, 1995, that he would not seek
indictment of Pierce, during  the course of the investigation
seventeen (17) other persons  were charged with and convicted of
federal crimes as a result  of the IC's investigation. That
investigation and the indict- ments ranged well beyond the core facts
of the original  application for appointment of independent counsel.
Of par- ticular reference to the petitioner before us, the IC
conducted  a thorough investigation of the contacts between Pierce and
 Battle Fowler. In the end, the IC "concluded that none of  these
contacts warranted further criminal investigation or  prosecution."
See 1 Arlin M. Adams & Larry D. Thompson,  Final Report of the
Independent Counsel in Re: Samuel R.  Pierce, Jr. 40 (1998) ("Final




__________

n 1 Independent Counsel Adams resigned in May of 1995. This  court
appointed his deputy, Larry D. Thompson of the Atlanta bar,  to
succeed him.


On April 17, 1998, after having received preliminary filing  of the
Final Report of the Independent Counsel, this court  ordered that the
contents of that report be made available to  each individual named
therein, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  s 594(h)(2), and provided that each
individual who so desired  could submit to the court comments or
factual information by  August 18, 1998. The court further ordered
that those  individuals who were entitled to the reimbursement of
attor- neys' fees under 28 U.S.C. s 593(f) should file petitions for 
such fees no later than November 16, 1998. Various individu- als made
such filings. On November 10, 1999, Battle Fowler  filed a petition
which we now consider, alleging that it had  been a subject of the
investigation and had incurred fees and  expenses by reason thereof in
the total amount of $373,004.48.


Timeliness of Petition. On April 17, 1998, we issued an  order in this
matter stating, inter alia, that attorneys' fees  petitions were to be
filed "with the Court no later than  November 16, 1998." In re Pierce,
Div. No. 89-5 (D.C. Cir.,  Spec. Div., Apr. 17, 1998) (order)
(emphasis added). Upon its  issuance, the order was forwarded to the
fee petitioner.  Nonetheless, the present fee petition was not filed
until  November 10, 1999, almost one year after the due date. No 
excuse was offered to show justifiable tardiness.


The petition by the law firm of Battle Fowler for reim- bursement of
attorneys' fees is therefore denied.