Case o' The Week: "Show Me the Money" not Sanctionable, in Ninth - Tillman and CJA Counsel
Hon. Judge Margaret McKeown |
The Ninth has endorsed a radical proposition:
CJA counsel can ask to get paid for their work.
United States v. Tillman, 2014 WL 2922659 (9th Cir. June 30, 2014), decision
available here.
Players: Great decision by Judge McKeown, joined
by Judges Wallace and Gould. Appeal and win by N.D. Cal CJA Attorney John R.
Grele.
Facts: CJA counsel John Grele was
appointed as learned counsel on a capital case in the District of Nevada. Id. at *1. When death was not authorized,
Grele remained as counsel. Id.
Years
into the case, Grele and the presiding DJ exchanged a series of emails
regarding delays in CJA payments and the court’s concerns regarding costs. Id. at *1-*2. In an early email, Grele
referred to suspending work until payment was received. Id. at *1. At a later hearing, Grele assured the court “[i]f I get
paid in a timely fashion, I can represent [that] I can provide effective
assistance of counsel.” Id. at *3.
After the hearing, the court issued an order with factual findings, accusing
Grele of “attempting to extort the court by delay or withdrawal of
representation,” and of “violating his ethical obligations of representation to
a client.” Id. The district court referred a
copy of the order to the California Bar Association, and new counsel was
appointed for Mr. Tillman. Id. at *3.
(The California State Bar dismissed the court’s referral at the investigatory stage.). Id.
Issue(s): “This case highlights the tension
between judicial efforts to control costs of appointed counsel, the defendant’s
right to have counsel appointed, counsel’s reliance on timely payment of
Criminal Justice Act (“CJA”) vouchers, and the delays often present in processing
vouchers for payment.” Id. at *1. “Grele
challenges the district court’s order as an improper sanction and requests that
we exercise mandamus jurisdiction to vacate the order . . . . We construe Grele’s
portion of the appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus.” Id. at *4.
Held: “We
conclude that mandamus jurisdiction is appropriate to consider the sanctions
order, that the district court erred in imposing sanctions without notice and a
hearing, and that the order should be vacated.” Id. at *1. “We exercise our mandamus jurisdiction, grant the
petition, and vacate the order.” Id.
at *4.
Of Note: In a thoughtful opinion, Judge McKeown recognizes the blunt
financial realities that face CJA counsel: bills must be paid. “To be sure, the
judiciary and the lawyers have an obligation to be stewards of CJA funds. But
this oversight should not trade off with the rights of clients. Nor should such
supervision ignore the practical reality that inordinate delays in processing
CJA vouchers stretch lawyers to their economic limits.” Id. at *6. In the present case, “[a]fter Grele spent years as
Tillman’s counsel, the district court improperly removed him for highlighting a
problem with voucher payments, which the district court admitted were untimely,
and the court did so without giving Grele any notice or opportunity to be
heard.” Id. at *6.
Judge McKeown also
acknowledges the real tension between funding limitations and recruiting CJA
counsel – Grele’s criticisms “echoed” decades of critiques on this very real problem.
Id. at *7.
Tillman is a welcome endorsement of the need for independent (and
timely-paid) CJA counsel: a must read for all
appointed CJA folks (including Federal Defender staff, sandwiched between furloughs
in our recent past, and the Work Measurement Study in our near future . . . .)
How to
Use: To its credit, the D. Nev. USAO took
no position on Grele’s appeal in Tillman.
Id. at *4 n.1. The government
correctly recognized the “importance that appointed defense attorneys operate
independently of the prosecution,” and that “federal law and administrative
policy has long precluded participation by the U.S. Attorney’s Offices in
CJA-related matters.” Id.
Footnote One
is a good resource to share with AUSAs too eager to wade into CJA appointment issues
– issues that are properly the unique concern of the Court and counsel.
For
Further Reading: Tillman
is not the only contribution of the District of Nevada to the issue of CJA
payments. The Administrative Office has adopted the Nevada e-voucher system for
CJA payments.
For an interesting article from the U.S. Courts on the Nevada eVoucher
System, see article here.
Image
of the Honorable Judge Margaret McKeown from http://www.usdmootcourt.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/mclennon_judges_2010.jpg
Steven
Kalar, Federal Public Defender N.D. Cal. Website at www.ndcalfpd.org
.
.
Labels: CJA, Mandamus, Sixth Amendment, Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home