Page 169 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 169

 ABA standards, including the 2003 ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases and the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice.552
For more on death penalty and capital representation under the CJA, please see Section 9
5.5 Alternative Approaches to Voucher Review
In the majority of districts, judges alone conduct a reasonableness review of attor- ney fees and requests for expert witnesses and other specialized services. But some districts centralize and facilitate the review process by relying upon CJA super- visory attorneys, CJA administrators employed either by the court or the fed-
eral defender office, and/or circuit case-budgeting attorneys to review resource requests and vouchers and make recommendations to the presiding judge, who then approves payment. On the whole, these approaches mitigate many of the problems associated with judicial review.
5.5.1 Use of CJA Supervising Attorneys and CJA Administrators
In its 1997 study, the FJC evaluated the use of supervising attorneys to review vouch- ers, and concluded:
Appointed counsel in these districts appreciate the prompt and reliable reviews of their payment vouchers that the CJA supervising attorneys pro- vide, and 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.553
The FJC cited many benefits to tasking supervising attorneys with voucher review, including:
Effectiveness of Representation
ffThey can relieve presiding judges of direct supervision of one party’s litiga- tion strategies, which alleviates a potential conflict of interest that attorneys
552 Id.at3–5.
553 FederalJudicialCenterReporttotheJudicialConferenceCommitteesonDefenderServices, Judicial Resources, and Court Administration and Case Management, The CJA Supervising Attorney: A Possible Tool in Criminal Justice Act Administration, April 2001, Executive Summary, at 1.
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 125
 States unless approved by the Conference itself.

   167   168   169   170   171