Page 98 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 98

 FINDINGS
more thoroughly in other parts of this report, for those qualified attorneys who do remain on the panel, the low hourly rate creates significant financial hardships.
3.5.3 Rate increases Over Time
The chart below shows the non-capital hourly rates paid panel attorneys between 2002 and today:203
History of Criminal Justice Act (CJA) Rates Non-Capital Hourly Rates for CJA Panel Attorneys
 If services were performed between...
The hourly rate maximum is...
5/5/2017 to present
$132
1/1/2016 through 5/4/2017
$129
1/1/2015 through 12/31/2015
$127
3/1/2014 through 12/31/2014
$126
9/1/2013 through 2/28/2014
$110
1/1/2010 through 8/31/2013
$125
3/11/2009 through 12/31/2009
$110
1/1/2008 through 3/10/2009
$100
5/20/2007 through 12/31/2007
$94
1/1/2006 through 5/19/2007
$92
5/1/2002 through 12/31/2005
$90
  54 2 0 1 7
R E P O R T
O F
T H E
Historically, Congress has funded a panel attorney rate well below the maxi- mum rate authorized by statute. For instance, in 2002, the statutorily authorized max- imum hourly rate was $115, yet Congress funded a rate of only $90 per hour. In 2008, the statutory maximum rate was set at $133, but Congress funded only $100 per hour. And in 2014, the statutory maximum rate was $141, but Congress funded an hourly rate of $126.204 This low rate and the historically slow growth of that rate have dam- aged the ability of panels to recruit and keep qualified defense attorneys. This report takes up the issue of the rate’s impact on effective representation in greater depth in Section 7, but it became clear in the course of this study that the slow incremental increase in the hourly rate damages the CJA’s ability to secure high quality represen- tation for those unable to afford counsel.
By any measurable market comparator, the hourly rate for CJA panel attorneys is extremely low. The 2005 Subcommittee report, discussed above, ultimately rec- ommended a considerable rate increase. The report concluded:
CJA panel attorney representations and pay rates have been thoroughly
203 SeeGuidetoJudiciaryPolicy,7A,Ch.2,§230.16(A). 204 SeealsochartinExecutiveSummaryatxviii.
No recommendation presented herein represents 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 the policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States unless approved by the Conference itself.





























































   96   97   98   99   100