Page 127 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 127

 for panel management and voucher review be transferred to a local administra- tor in each district. The pilot ran in three districts, each of which assigned the CJA supervising attorney different duties, though they each had the same core assign- ments (panel administration, case budgeting, and voucher reviews for reason- ableness).339 The supervising attorney in Maryland was additionally charged with making panel appointments.340
At the request of the AO, the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) evaluated the pilot program and in a final report released in April of 2001 entitled The CJA Supervising Attorney, A Possible Tool in Criminal Justice Administration, proclaimed the pilot a success, a conclusion that the Judicial Conference endorsed.341 As the report explained:
There is no question that these positions have value. Appointed coun- sel in these districts appreciate...the availability of a central, accessible, knowledgeable resource for assistance with CJA issues. Judges appreciate being relieved of tasks many feel they do not have time for, they are not proficient at, and/or it is inappropriate for them to do.342
The FJC concluded that although the position did not directly improve the quality of representation, it “may have indirect positive impacts,”343 including “effec- tively managing CJA panels to ensure that they contain only highly-qualified attor- neys,” and attracting high-quality attorneys by ensuring impartiality in panel admin- istration, given “the possibility that a CJA supervising attorney who supervises how attorneys are assigned to cases can influence attorneys’ perceptions of fairness.”344 Notably, this was true in the district in Maryland, where the CJA supervising attorney had the additional responsibility of appointing CJA panel attorneys to cases. Surveys of Maryland judges conducted as part of the evaluation indicated an improvement in their opinions of assignments.345
339 TimReaganetal.,CJASupervisingAttorney:APossibleToolinCriminalJusticeActAdministration, Fed. Judicial Ctr., Apr. 2001, available at https://www.fjc.gov/content/cja-supervising-attorney- possible-tool-criminal-justice-act-administration.
340 “Maryland’sCJAsupervisingattorneyreviewsallpaymentvoucherswithsignatureauthorityfor vouchers under statutory limits. She also negotiates budgets in capital cases and makes approval recommendations to the court. She supervises appointment of attorneys to the panel and assignment of attorneys to cases. In California Central the CJA supervising attorney has signature authority
for all vouchers. He does not participate in case budgeting and he only recently began to assume panel management responsibilities. In California Northern the CJA supervising attorney’s primary responsibility is the development and implementation of case budgeting procedures. She reviews some vouchers and makes payment recommendations to the court. Recently she began to supervise mathematical and technical reviews of all vouchers. She has virtually no responsibilities for panel management.” Tim Reagan et al., CJA Supervising Attorney: A Possible Tool in Criminal Justice Act Administration, Fed. Judicial Ctr., Apr. 2001, at 16.
 341 Seegenerallyid. 342 Id.at1.
343 Id.at2.
344 Id.
345 Id.at46.
No recommendation presented herein represents
the policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States unless approved by the Conference itself.
2 0 1 7
R E P O R T
O F
T H E
A D
H O C
C O M M I T T E E
T O
R E V I E W
T H E
C R I M I N A L
J U S T I C E
A C T 83
 








































































   125   126   127   128   129