Page 151 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 151

 occurred to me, should I be doing a sentencing memo here or are they going to think that I shouldn’t have done a sentencing memo here? Just the fact that that even enters my mind now is wrong.”454
If you have not billed for all the time you or other members of your defense team spent on a panel representation, why was this so?
           I thought we should have been more efficient
Some work would not be considered compensable by policy or statute
It was too inconvenient or difficult to track the work
A case budgeting attorney or court staff member encouraged me to reduce the bill
A panel representative or public defender encouraged me to reduce the bill
A judge instructed me to reduce the bill
I thought the district court would cut the bill anyway
I thought the appellate court would cut the bill anyway
I was worried about getting a future appointment
I wanted to keep the voucher under a cap
    3.27% 1.41%
   10% 20%
30% 40% 50%
   Source: CJA Review Committee Survey on Vouchers (June 2016), available at
5.3.2 Voucher Cutting is Increasing
There is also a widespread perception that voucher cutting is becoming more fre- quent. At every hearing, witnesses testified that voucher cutting has increased markedly over the past few years, particularly since sequestration. The amount of testimony made clear that panel attorneys have become increasingly concerned about judges’ decisions to reduce their compensation.
Federal defenders, who are often in the position to see or hear about the voucher cuts, confirmed these trends. One federal defender testified, “I have a lot of lawyers who call me up and say, you know what, I’ve been on the panel for twenty years and I’ve never had a voucher cut and all of a sudden I am getting these cuts and...the only explanation is, that is too much money for that kind of case.”455
454 MarkShea,CJAPanelAtty.,D.Mass.,PublicHearing—Philadelphia,Pa.,Panel4,Tr.at10. 455 StephenMcCue,FPD,D.N.M.,PublicHearing—SantaFe,NM,Panel2,Tr.at36.
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 107
 States unless approved by the Conference itself.

   149   150   151   152   153