He should be paid no more than attorneys paid by the government under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 USC 3006a. He has no reason to interview board members--that's ridiculous.
On the other hand, what is really going on here? You would think that Apple would roll out the red carpet. Most companies, when faced with the imposition of a monitor--most often you see IRS auditors--go overboard making them feel at home. It's a way of winning the monitor over to the company's side. Did Apple try this and fail? Or did this monitor, accustomed to that kind of treatment (remember, this is his fourth "monitoship") blow his stack because he didn't get a key to the executive washroom? I suspect the latter.
In any event, there is no reason for the USG to be paying at greater than government rates and if Apple is reimbursing the government that is still no reason to charge greater than government rates.
On the other hand, what is really going on here? You would think that Apple would roll out the red carpet. Most companies, when faced with the imposition of a monitor--most often you see IRS auditors--go overboard making them feel at home. It's a way of winning the monitor over to the company's side. Did Apple try this and fail? Or did this monitor, accustomed to that kind of treatment (remember, this is his fourth "monitoship") blow his stack because he didn't get a key to the executive washroom? I suspect the latter.
In any event, there is no reason for the USG to be paying at greater than government rates and if Apple is reimbursing the government that is still no reason to charge greater than government rates.