Page 200 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 200

 156 2 0 1 7
the amount I’m asking for. I’m just trying to think . . . if there’s been an explanation or if it’s just been the judge crossing the amount out and just saying, “I’m just going to give you $2500 right now.” Then I had to go back several times.”720
If multiple experts are required, the attorney will have to repeat this process multiple times, on each occasion disclosing information concerning the proposed defense.721 In addition, attorneys sometimes face requests from the judge presiding over the case to seek a reduced rate from the selected expert. Multiple lawyers spoke of the challenge of recruiting “qualified experts willing to handle CJA appointments at hourly rates which are non-competitive in the private sector.”722
As one panel attorney noted, ultimately, “judicial involvement in management of resources can negatively impact the quality of our representation,”723 creating the current disparity between CJA panel attorneys and federal defenders. Another panel attorney was emphatic in stating that judicial review of expert requests entrenches resource disparities and unfairness:
There is categorically, from my perspective as a defense lawyer, no rea- sonable, logical, ethical, lawful explanation why there should be a distinc- tion between the defense function and the prosecution function. There is no reason why as defense lawyers we should have to go to the judiciary and basically be beholden to their largess...The prosecution doesn’t go through these machinations. We should not have to. It certainly impacts on the quality of representation.724
7.1.3 Attorney Effort
The low use of expert services by panel attorneys is the most visible disparity in resources between panel lawyers, federal defenders, and government attorneys. But limits on the time panel attorneys can devote to a representation are even more critical. The ways in which judicial management of panel lawyers’ compen- sation serves to limit attorney effort are discussed fully in Section 5 on compensa- tion. They include the refusal to pay for categories of work, bench marks for how much a type of case should cost, and “pro bono” voucher cuts. In these and many
720 JenniferHorwitz,CJADist.Rep.,W.D.Wash.,PublicHearing—Portland,Or.,Panel5,Tr.,at41. 721 Themaximumcompensationforinvestigative,expert,andotherserviceswithoutprior
authorization is $800. See 7 Guide to Judiciary Policy § 310.20.30 (2013).
722 GilbertSchaffnit,CJADist.Rep.,N.D.Fla.,PublicHearing—Miami,Fla.,Panel6,Writ.Test.,at6. For example, as a panel lawyer told the Committee, “the approved rate for a forensic accountant is $150 per hour. However, the ‘going’ rate charged by a forensic account is approximately $270 [per hour] for a partner, $185 for a manager, and $140 for an associate.” David Eisenberg, CJA Dist. Rep., D. Ariz., Public Hearing—Santa Fe, N.M., Panel 6, Writ. Test., at 4.
723 LoriNakaoka,CJAPanelAtty.,D.Idaho,PublicHearing—Portland,Or.,Panel5,Tr.,at41.
724 RobertLeBell,CJADist.Rep.,E.D.Wis.,PublicHearing—Minneapolis,Minn.,Panel4,Tr.,at3.
No recommendation presented herein represents 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 the policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States unless approved by the Conference itself.

   198   199   200   201   202