Norm and Laurie Coleman at a 2008 campaign event (Paul Demko)

Norm and Laurie Coleman at a 2008 campaign event (Paul Demko)

Norm Coleman is facing massive legal bills.

The former senator took another substantial financial hit yesterday when the three-judge panel presiding over the U.S. Senate contest ruled that Al Franken won the election. The judges also ordered Coleman to pay for court costs accrued during the trial. While this does not include attorney’s fees, it does cover administrative expenses such as witness transportation and copy costs. Given that the seven-week case included 19,000 pages of legal pleadings, 1,717 individual exhibits, and testimony from 142 witnesses, it would seem that such costs could be substantial.

In addition, as indicated in a March 2 ruling, Coleman will be responsible for some of Franken’s legal bills. This punishment stems from Coleman’s lawyers failure to properly disclose contacts with a potential trial witness. It’s impossible to say exactly what the financial damage will turn out to be. Marc Elias, Franken’s lead recount attorney, declined to speculate on how much money this might entail during a conference call with reporters Tuesday afternoon.

Coleman has had a team of high-profile lawyers on retainer for months to fight the U.S. Senate contest. Determining exactly how much this litigation will ultimately cost is impossible at this point. But Nate Silver recently estimated the damage to be around $145,000 per week. (Coleman’s first quarter FEC report, which should shed some light on the matter, is due tomorrow.)

What’s more, Coleman faces seemingly substantial legal bills stemming from a pair of lawsuits related to his relationship with longtime associate Nasser Kazeminy. The former senator said back in December that he would ask the the Federal Election Commission whether he could utilize his campaign funds to cover attorney’s fees related to allegations that Kazeminy attempted to funnel $75,000 to the then-sitting senator. But according to FEC records, Coleman never followed through on seeking what’s known as an “advisory opinion.”

Roll Call (subscription only) recently attempted to get an explanation from the Coleman campaign as to why they failed to seek FEC clearance for using campaign funds to pay his legal bills. But repeated phone calls and emails were ignored.

Coleman is under no obligation to seek explicit permission for the fundraising scheme, but legislators often seek guidance from the agency in controversial matters. Last week, for instance, Rep. Elton Gallegly, asked the FEC to clarify whether he could use campaign funds to upgrade the security system on his Southern California home. The reason: a stalker was harassing his wife after an altercation on the campaign trail.

In January, Alliance for a Better Minnesota filed a complaint with the FEC arguing that Coleman’s use of campaign funds to pay legal bills unrelated to election matters ran afoul of the agency’s rules. While the FEC acknowledged receiving the complaint, there has been no further communication on the matter, according to Denise Cardinal, executive director of the liberal advocacy group.

The allegations contained in the pair of lawsuits are still very much alive. A second person involved in the matter recently provided sworn testimony that Kazeminy ordered $75,000 funneled to a Minneapolis insurance firm where Coleman’s wife works. While Coleman is not a party to the cases, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reportedly is also looking into the allegations. The former senator recently refused to answer when asked if he’d been interviewed by the law enforcement agency. Coleman has hired Doug Kelley to represent him in the matter, while his wife has tapped Earl Gray to watch out for her interests. Both are former federal prosecutors turned high-profile defense attorneys. They undoubtedly also charge a pretty penny for their services.

It remains a mystery why Coleman failed to get approval from the FEC to cover these bills with campaign funds. But if the agency ultimately determines that Coleman must pay for the attorneys’ fees himself, it would certainly add to his personal financial troubles.