The relevant portion of the report that applies to your concern is:
3. No invoices were submitted to the State by Mr. Van Flein's law firm, pursuant to this state contract, due to the decision by Governor Palin and her attorneys that it would be too difficult to separate the functions of representing Governor Palin in her official capacity in the pending state-related matters, and representing her in other related campaign or partisan matters beyond the scope of the state contract. Thus, to avoid an appearance of impropriety or any allegation that legal fees were being paid for legal services beyond the scope of the state contract, Van Flein's law firm and Governor Palin agreed that funding for these services would be sought from sources other than state funding.In other words, Palin and her attorney did not want any further ethics complaints based on what they billed the state. Believe me, it would have been an open invitation to the moonbats. Plus, as Palin has stated, she didn't believe the taxpayers should be responsible for footing the bill for partisan witchhunts.
Palin's attorney, Thomas Van Flein, discussed this on camera way back during the campaign in Oct. 2008 during the troopergate witchhunt. He makes his position very clear about the legal difficulty in billing the state for legal fees that do not specifically involve state business. The video is 8 minutes long and covers a number of issues involving troopergate, including the quashing of subpoenas. The part on billing the state for legal services comes up in the mid-part of the interview.
Just to make it clear again from my earlier post on this thread, the issue of the $100,000 authorized by the legislature was based on troopergate. It was covered extensively in the media almost 2 years ago. More dredged-up old news by the PDS'ers.
Leni