Page 175 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 175

 one-third of the cost of all representations.584 In creating this program, DSC hoped to help both judges and panel attorneys develop reasonable budgets for these high-cost cases and also assist attorneys in obtaining the resources necessary to provide effec- tive representation. DSC also hoped to better coordinate and obtain more control over service provider rates.585 The pilot was designed with “the recognition that many judges do not have the time, training, expertise, or tools to assess whether payment claims made by attorneys and service providers are necessary and reasonable.”586
The pilot program ran for three years, and placed CBAs in the Second, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits. DSC funded the positions, but the attorneys were hired by and reported to the circuits.
Their primary responsibility was to provide “objective case-budgeting advice to attorneys and judges and enhanc[e] case management in the pilot circuits.”587 One of the Ninth Circuit CBAs described her role:
We meet with counsel to assess case management needs, including elec- tronic discovery issues and forecasting case expenses. In multi-defen- dant cases, we try to identify ways counsel can share investigative, expert, paralegal, and electronic discovery management resources. The budgets we develop encompass both estimated attorney hours and service provid- ers needed for multiple stages of litigation, and we assure counsel that a budget can be supplemented or amended if circumstances change.588
The Judicial Conference had previously encouraged courts to require panel attorneys to submit proposed litigation budgets for all capital habeas and capital prosecution representations, as well as in non-capital felony representations that were likely to become “mega cases” (defined at the time as in excess of 300 attor- ney hours or total costs for attorney and service providers to exceed $30,000).589
Yet both attorneys and judges struggled to plan and manage large case budgets
and contain costs while ensuring effective representation for clients. DSC believed CBAs could assist by providing consistent compensation standards, developing case budgeting training programs, designing cost containment initiatives, and making
584 MargaretS.Williams,CircuitCJACase-BudgetingAttorneyPilotProjectEvaluation(2007–2009), Federal Judicial Center Final Report, p. 1. [hereinafter FJC Case Budgeting Attorney Study].
585 JudgeJohnGleeson(ret.),E.D.N.Y.,PublicHearing—Miami,Fla.,Panel3,Tr.at26.
586 FJCCaseBudgetingAttorneyStudyat1.
587 Idatv.
588 KristineFox,CaseBudgetingAtty.,9thCir.,PublicHearing—SanFrancisco,Cal.,Panel1,Writ. Test. at 3.
589 GuidetoJudiciaryPolicy,Vol.7A,Ch.2,§230.26(asadoptedJCUS-MAR97,p.23);and§640. The non-capital provision which defines a “mega-case” was amended in September 2015 to allow for escalation in the threshold corresponding to increases in the panel attorney hourly rate, with the new “mega-case” threshold being 300 attorney hours or total costs for attorney and service providers to exceed $40,000. JCUS-SEP 15 at 16.
No recommendation presented herein represents
the policy of the Judicial Conference of the United 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 131
 States unless approved by the Conference itself.
 


















































































   173   174   175   176   177