CJA News Blog

As of November 2012, CJA payment checks come from the United States Treasury. If you have received a check since then you probably noticed that they look different. The envelopes also look different and include a statement about “GoDirect” that encourages recipients to sign up for direct deposit.

The GoDirect campaign is initiative to convert all social security beneficiaries to direct deposit or a prepaid check card. At present, GoDirect only applies to social security beneficiaries. The Administrative Office has begun the planning process to convert to electronic CJA payments. The earliest the conversion will take place is sometime in 2014. At that time CJA payment recipients will be asked for their banking information.

Here is a recent email from Dan Stiller, executive director of Federal Defender Services of Wisconsin, Inc., explaining how he thinks the “sequester” will impact Wisconsin CJA panel lawyers and the Federal Defenders office.

Dear Panel Lawyers:

As all of you know, our government’s inability to achieve a budget for the now five-month old current fiscal year is accompanied by something called the sequester, which took effect on March 1. Dumbed down to terms I can
understand, the sequester is a series of significant spending cuts that will remain in place until such time as a federal budget is agreed upon or, in the alternative, our legislators arrive at some kind of sequester fix.

Many of you are likely wondering what the sequester means to us. Not to be cute but the answer depends on how we define “us.” If “us” is limited to our panel attorneys, the sequester-related injury is, as I’ll describe below, less than certain to occur and, even in its worst case, nowhere near catastrophic. But if “us” is FDSW, things are bad, as I’ll also explain.

Sequester and our Panels

During the third week of February, Bob LeBell, Rob Ruth, and I were present at a conference where in “breaking news” fashion, we heard the sequester’s potential ramifications upon panel payments straight from the mouth of the bureaucratic horse. Now that the sequester is in effect and if it perseveres throughout the end of this fiscal year (September 30), we’re told that the sole tangible impact upon panel payments will be a year-end three week deferral of panel payments. What this means is that in a worst case scenario (i.e., the sequester continuing through 9/30), all the sequester is expected to do to panel payments is that a voucher submitted on say 9/15 won’t be paid until 12 business days later.

And reality may prove better than the worst case. Nobody expects the sequester to persevere (and, as I’ll explain below, I’m betting big upon that expectation). In fact there’s a conventional wisdom that it won’t last even through this month. As one fiscal year turns to another, the absence of an approved federal budget for the new fiscal year results in our government operating upon a renewable “continuing resolution.” That’s been our year thus far with, I believe, one extension of the continuing resolution having already occurred. Towards the end of this month, the existing CR is due to expire. So to avoid a complete month-end shutdown of our federal government, Congress must between now and then either pass a budget or extend the CR. Informed folks seem to think that the CR’s expiration date may force Congress to at least do a sequestration fix (what that might look like is anyone’s guess). But from the perspective of a panel lawyer, I think the word is this: the worst you might plan for is three-week delays in payments upon end of (fiscal) year vouchers and there’s good reason to think that things won’t even be that bad.

Intangibly, please understand that the impact of a sequester is upon all federal agencies and all federal programs. By this I mean, most particularly, that the judges who review your vouchers are subject to and therefore sensitive about the sequester. So it wouldn’t surprise me if the sequester causes a judge or more to look more closely at vouchers in the name of sequester-related cost containment. This would be inappropriate. The Judicial Conference of the United States has contemplated how the sequester should effect panel payments: they could have cut the hourly rate, slashed the case comp max, or done any number of things. But whether it’s a good idea or a bad idea, the JCUS decided that the bite upon the panel as a result of sequester should be nothing more than the year-end delay I’ve described. In other words, judicial review of panel payments remains for reasonableness and the sequester should not influence any robed assessment of what is reasonable. Support for this is found at Section 230.33 of Volume VII of the Guide to Judiciary Policies and Procedures: judges should not delay or reduce panel payments for the purpose of diminishing Defender Services program costs in response to adverse financial circumstances. In other words, it’s the role of the JCUS to declare how panel payments should be impacted by a funding shortfall and judges on the ground are to follow JCUS policy. But judges reviewing vouchers are not to enact their own cost-containment measures.

Sequester and FDSW

Separate and apart from sequester, this was a tough week at FDSW. This is because on Valentine’s Day we were told that all federal defender budgets are being cut by five percent separate and distinct from the sequester. And because the five percent cut to our annual budget arrives five months through our fiscal year, it really means that our funding for the remaining seven months of the fiscal year is reduced by nearly 10 percent. Though I generally view FDSW’s internal operations as a private matter, I’ll share this: on Thursday, I met with all of our employees to say that in addition to other cost-containing measures, each and every one of us (including me) will have to endure 12 furlough days (days of involuntary unpaid leave) between now and 9/30. In other words, we’re all enduring a pay cut of nearly 10 percent over the next seven months.

So the sequester and its long-term ramifications are monumental within this office. For each day that the sequester perseveres, we’re leaking 5.5% of that day’s funding. And remember: for us, sequester cuts are taken off of our already minus 5% funding. Between now and the end of the CR, I’m letting things ride while hoping that the sequester goes away. If it doesn’t, I fear that FDSW, like all federal defender offices, will find itself in a bit of a no fault of our own free fall.

So when you deal with Chris Moreno and Cindy Hughes and our lawyers, please try to play extra nice: it’s an uncomfortable time to be employed by a federal defender office.

Dan.

====================================

The rate for all CJA mileage on or after January 1, 2013 increases $.04 to $.565 per mile. Mileage incurred before January 1, 2013, gets billed at the rate in effect at the time of the mileage. The recent rates are as follows:

From 4/17/12 to 1/21/12 $0.525

From 1/1/11 to 4/16/12 $0.48

From 1/1/10 to 12/31/11 $0.47

Here is a link to the memo on the subject from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

Beginning November 5, 2012, the Administrative Office of the US Courts will “outsource” the actual printing and mailing of CJA, expert services and court reporter payment checks to the Department of the Treasury. Here is the AO memo on the subject. Payment will still occur via a check sent through the mail; electronic payment is still on the horizon.