Page 126 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 126

 82 2 0 1 7
the country—a compilation of best practices that matches very closely with what numerous witnesses who appeared before this Committee described and recom- mended as successful practices. Notable among these are the use of a committee to manage the CJA and a training requirement for attorneys selected to the panel.
The Model Plan proposes the establishment of a CJA Panel Committee to administer the panel. The recommended makeup of that Panel Committee is:
[O]ne district court judge, one magistrate judge, the [federal public defender/community defender], the CJA Panel Attorney District Representative (PADR), a criminal defense attorney who practices reg- ularly in the district who may be a CJA panel member, and an ex offi- cio staff member employed by the [federal public defender/community defender/clerk] who will act as administrative coordinator.333
While the Model Plan allows that the composition of the Panel Committee “can be adjusted to reflect the degree of judicial, federal defender, or panel attorney involvement that is desired by each district court,”334 as demonstrated by suggested membership, its base recommendation is one of judicial input but not control.335 The duties of the Panel Committee include determining panel membership, recruit- ment for the panel, an annual report, maintaining a removal process, voucher review, and creating and sustaining a mentoring program.336
The Model Plan includes recommendations that districts establish term limits on the panel service and a reappointment process337 and suggests that districts require CJA panel members to attend a specified number of continuing legal educa- tion hours annually relevant to the practice of criminal defense in federal court.338
4.3.2 CJA Supervisory Attorney Pilot Program
In 1997, the Judicial Conference of the United States (JCUS) authorized a pilot pro- gram to test one of the suggestions of the Prado Committee: that the responsibility
333 Id.at14. 334 Id.
335 PleasenotethattheModelPlanrecommendsbestpracticeswithintheconstraintsofthecurrent structure of the CJA.
336 ModelPlanat16–17.TheModelPlanstatesthatthePanelCommitteeshould“[r]eviewandmake recommendations on the processing and payment of CJA vouchers in those cases where the court, for reasons other than mathematical errors, is considering authorizing payment for less than the amount of compensation claimed by CJA counsel. The judge will, at the time the voucher is submitted to the CJA Committee, provide a statement describing questions or concerns they have with the voucher. Counsel will be notified of the potential voucher reduction and given the opportunity to provide information or documentation relevant to the voucher and concerns raised by the judge. The CJA Committee will issue a written recommendation to the judge.” Id. See also Section 5 for why removal of voucher review from the judiciary would be consistent with best practices.
337 ModelPlanat19–20. 338 Id.at24.
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.

   124   125   126   127   128