The attorneys are trying to determine whether Hellerman, whose firm provides NOAA with analyses of fishermen's personal and business net worth and liquidity to validate the size of potential fines, was reimbursed or paid directly from the Asset Forfeiture Fund for his expenses related to the 2005 conference in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and the 2008 conference in Norway.

Hellerman told the Times he was not planning to attend next month's third international conference on illegal fishing to be held over five days in Mozambique, and he referred questions about his travel expenses to NOAA.

NOAA did not respond to questions about its financial relationship with Hellerman.

In statements to the Times, Lafreniere and Ouellette said that, whether or not Hellerman's overseas travel was covered by NOAA, his presence at the conferences with NOAA agents and litigators represents a conflict of interest.

"Steve and I would either object or call into question his credibility based on the fact that his opinion may be tainted by the fact that he may be deriving an economic benefit from the AFF by ... direct payment for his services and travel to non-case related seminars," Lafreniere said.

"The bigger issue is the agency counsel, administrative law judges and the NOAA's expert witness appeared together at conferences that did not include, and appear to have excluded, industry or its counsel, indicating a lack of judicial independence," she said.

Read the complete story from the Gloucester Times.