Ca se Bud g e ting : Stra te g ie s fo r Pla nning a nd F und - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Ca se Bud g e ting : Stra te g ie s fo r Pla nning a nd F und ing L itig a tio n in Ca pita l a nd Me g a -Ca se s

2016 CL E NORT HE RN AND SOUT HE RN DIST RICT S OF MISSISSIPPI DE CE MBE R 9, 2016 BIL OXI, MISSISSIPPI

MARGARE T E . AL VE RSON

CIRCUIT CJA CASE BUDGE T ING AT T ORNE Y – F IF T H CIRCUIT

Be ne fits o f Budg e ting

E

nha nc e s the q ua lity o f re pre se nta tio n

Assists pa ne l a tto rne ys in

• b ta ining funding fo r se rvic e

pro vide rs

Allo ws fo r inte rim pa yme nts in

le ng thy a nd time inte nsive litig a tio n

E

nsure s tha t c o unse l a nd se rvic e pro vide rs will b e pa id fo r b udg e te d wo rk

T ype s o f Ca se s to Budg e t

Ca pita l pro se c utio ns Ca pita l ha b e a s c a se s

• 28 U.S.C. § 2254
• 28 U.S.C. § 2255

Ca pita l c le me nc y a nd sta y

pro c e e ding s

No n c a pita l me g a c a se s

• 300 + a tto rne y ho urs
• to ta l e xpe nditure s e xpe c te d to

e xc e e d 300 time s the pre va iling CJA no n-c a pita l ho urly ra te (a ppro xima te ly $39,000)

E xa mple s

• f Me g a

c a se s

E

xte nsive Disc o ve ry

Multiple De fe nda nts RICO / IT

AR

Ga ng Ca se s Ma jo r Na rc o tic s c o nspira c ie s Ma jo r F

ra ud

Wire ta p Ca se s T

e rro rism Ca se s o r Ca se s with Cla ssifie d Do c ume nts

Ca pita l Ca se s- Spe c ia l Co nside ra tio ns

 Ca pita l c a se s

• Circ uit a ppro va l ne e de d w he n a tto rne y

fe e s e xc e e d $100,000 a t tria l le ve l, $50,000 a ppe lla te (5th Circ uit Judic ia l Co unc il Spe c ia l Pro c e dure s fo r Re vie wing Atto rne y Co mpe nsa tio n Re q ue st)

 Ca pita l ha b e a s c a se s

• $35,000 Distric t Co urt
• $15,000 Circ uit Co urt

 F

ig ure is a thre sho ld w hic h trig g e rs the ne e d fo r c irc uit re vie w

 Budg e ting is a n e ffe c tive me c ha nism fo r

c o mplying w ith the se c irc uit pro c e dure s w he n fe e s e xpe c te d to e xc e e d the limit

E ffe c t o f Budg e t Orde r o n I nte rim Vo uc he rs

 Non- Budg e te d Ca se s

• Pa yme nts b e lo w c a se ma ximum: Distric t c o urt c a n a utho rize if

p a yme nt + a ll p rio r p a yme nts d o no t e xc e e d the c a se ma ximum. Circ uit a p p ro va l no t re q uire d .

• Pa yme nts e xc e e d ing c a se ma ximum: Circ uit a p p ro va l re q uire d .
• Circ uit a p p ro ve d inte rim vo uc he rs ma y b e p a id a t 100%.

 Budg e te d Ca se s

• Distric t c o urt ma y a p p ro ve p a yme nt o f inte rim vo uc he rs

c o nsiste nt with the b ud g e te d a mo unt. Circ uit a p p ro va l no t re q uire d .

• Distric t c o urt a p p ro ve d inte rim vo uc he rs: fe e s p a id a t 80%.
• Co unse l ma y c la im the 20% re ta ina g e in the fina l vo uc he r.
• F

ina l vo uc he r re q uire s c irc uit a p p ro va l.

• Pra c tic e a p p lie s to a tto rne y a nd se rvic e p ro vid e r fe e s.
• e xp e nse s re imb urse d in full.

Whe n to Be g in Budg e ting

 E

a rlie r the Be tte r

 Ide a lly a t the time o f a ppo intme nt  Co nta c t the Ca se Budg e ting Atto rne y

to disc uss c a se a nd ho w to pro c e e d Me g Alve rso n 504.310.7799 Ma rg a re t_Alve rso n@ c a 5.usc o urts.g o v

Wo rk with the Ca se Budg e ting Atto rne y

E

x pa rte c o mmunic a tio n

Sa mple ma te ria ls a va ila b le De ve lo p o ve ra ll litig a tio n a nd

inve stig a tio n stra te g ie s

Ide ntify c o st drive rs Disc o ve ry – litig a tio n suppo rt ne e ds Stre a mline funding a utho riza tio n

pro c e ss – distric t a nd c irc uit c o urt

T he Pro c e ss in a Nutshe ll

 T

he distric t c o urt ma y o rde r tha t a c a se b e b udg e te d.

 Alte rna tive ly, c o unse l ma y

re que st to b udg e t a c a se .

 Pre fe re nc e fo rb udg e ting in pha se s.  Co unse l

pre pa re s initia l budg e t with suppo rting me mo ra ndum.

 T

he b udg e t pro po sal sho uld be sub mitte d e x parte unde rse a l.

 Ca pita l c a se s: pr

• pe r sho wing re q uire d

to pro c e e d e x parte .

 Re que st funding autho riza tio n fo r se r

vic e pro vide rs.

 Budg e t ma y b e a me nde d o r

supple me nte d.

 Distr

ic t c o urt re vie ws the pro po se d b udg e t.

 Distr

ic t c o urt’ s o rde r is fo rwa rde d to the c hie f judg e o f the c irc uit, o r de sig ne e , fo r re vie w.

 Circ uit c hie f judg e o r de sig ne e will issue the

b udg e t

• rde r

to b e file d unde r se a l.

 If

b udg e t re q ue st is re duc e d

• r

de nie d a lto g e the r b y the distr ic t c o urt, c o unse l ma y mo ve the distr ic t c o urt fo r re c o nside ra tio n.

 De nial o r re duc tio n o f a b udg e t re q ue st ma y

b e re vie wa ble o n a ppe a l o r in po st-c o nvic tio n pro c e e ding s whe re a s a vo uc he r re d uc tio n is no t.

T he Pro c e ss in a Nutshe ll

Ho w to g o a b o ut Budg e ting

 Ide ntify c o re te a m me mb e rs a nd se rvic e

pro vide rs

• Pa ra le g a l
• Inve stiga to r
• Mitig a tio n spe c ia list
• E

xpe rts

E

vo lve s a s yo u g e t into the c a se a nd ide ntify issue s

 Ide ntify fa c tua l a nd le g a l issue s  Ide ntify c o mple x o r uniq ue issue s fo r mo tio n

pra c tic e

 Disc o ve ry ma na g e me nt  Pro je c te d le ng th o f tria l

Asso c ia te Co unse l

 Witho ut Se p a ra te Ap p o intme nt:

• Ap p o inte d c o unse l ma y c la im c o mp e nsa tio n fo r se rvic e s

p ro vid e d b y p a rtne r o r a sso c ia te b ut must id e ntify who d id wha t wo rk o n vo uc he r.**

• Prio r c o urt a utho riza tio n ne e d e d if c o unse l is no t a p a rtne r o r

a sso c ia te . § 230.53.10 (b ).

 With Se p a ra te Ap p o intme nt:

• Ea c h a tto rne y ma y re c e ive up to ma ximum c o mp e nsa tio n.
• Ea c h a p p o inte d a tto rne y will file a se p a ra te vo uc he r. §

230.53.20.

 Ca p ita l Ca se s:

• Co unse l ma y use a tto rne ys “ who wo rk in a sso c ia tio n with

the m” a t a re d uc e d ho urly ra te if it d iminishe s the o ve ra ll c o st

• r ne e d e d to me e t time limita tio ns. **

 ** Pr

e fe r e nc e is fo r e ac h atto r ne y to file a se par ate vo uc he r be c ause o f e Vo uc he rc o nside r atio ns.

Ca lc ula ting Atto rne y ho urs

 Pla n the Ca se Stra te g y

• E

stima te time s fo r c lie nt c o nta c t, c o urt a ppe a ra nc e s, do c ume nt re vie w, re se a rc h, inve stig a tio ns

 Re vie w T

ime in Prio r Simila r Ca se s

• Re vie w yo ur pa st vo uc he rs a nd ta ke into

a c c o unt diffe re nc e s in c a se s

 Asse ss Yo ur Ava ila b ility

• E

stima te ho w ma ny ho urs pe r we e k yo u ha ve a va ila b le to wo rk o n the c a se

• Pra c tic a l a wa re ne ss o f c o urt o r sta tuto ry

de a dline s

 Use the Wo rkshe e ts to ide ntify the wo rk a nd the

time ne e de d to pe rfo rm it

Service Providers

 K

no w yo ur c a se –

• Wha t indic a te s the ne e d fo r this type o f

e xpe rt o r se rvic e pro vide r

• Ho w c a n this e xpe rt’ s po te ntia l finding s

suppo rt the de fe nse the o ry o f the c a se

• Or re b ut the g o ve rnme nt’ s e vide nc e o r

the o ry

 Co nsulting o r te stifying e xe rt  Due dilig e nc e se a rc h fo r fa vo ra b le ra te s  Ve t the e xpe rt

Need for Prior Authorization

Non- c apital c ase s:



Any individua l se rvic e p ro vide r in e xc e ss o f $2,500 (e xc lud ing e xp e nse s): d istric t c o urt must c e rtify a nd p rio r c irc uit a utho riza tio n re q uire d .



L e ss tha n $2,500: p rio r a utho riza tio n must b e o b ta ine d fro m the d istric t c o urt; c irc uit a utho riza tio n is no t re q uire d .

Capital Case s:



Co mb ine d c o mp e nsa tio n a nd e xp e nse s fo r a ll se rvic e p ro vide rs inc lud ing inve stig a to rs, mitig a tio n sp e c ia lists a nd e xp e rts in e xc e ss o f $7,500 must b e c e rtifie d b y the d istric t c o urt a nd a p p ro ve d b y the c irc uit.

Non Capital and Capital Case s:



T

• ta l c o st o f a ll se rvic e p ro vide rs c o mb ine d d o e s no t e xc e e d

$800 (e xc lud ing e xp e nse s), p rio r a utho riza tio n is no t ne c e ssa ry. NOT E: Se rvic e p ro vid e rs will b e se p a ra te ly e nte re d into e Vo uc he r.

Ca lc ula ting Se rvic e Pro vide r Ho urs

 I

de ntify the ne e d fo r a pa rtic ula r se rvic e pro vide r

 De fine the ir ro le s  Asse ss the sc o pe o f the wo rk ide ntifying

a ny o b vio us c o mple xitie s o r c o st-drive rs

 Co nfe r o n time ne e de d to pe rfo rm it

Working with Service Providers

 F

e e sc he dule

 Do c ume nt re vie w  Inte rvie ws

• Clie nt
• Witne sse s

 T

ra ve l

 E

vide nc e e xa mina tio n a nd te sting

 Co nsult w ith Co unse l  Re po rt w riting  Pre pa ra tio n to te stify

 T

e stimo ny

 E

ng a g e me nt L e tte r a nd Co nfide ntia lity Ag re e me nt

 Pe rio dic Vo uc he rs - sta y w/ in a ppro ve d funds

F unding Se rvic e Pro vide rs

 Re ta ine d c o unse l c a n mo ve fo r funding fo r

se rvic e pro vide rs. CJA Guide line s § 310.10.10

 No tify the c o urt if the se rvic e pro vide r is

re la te d to c o unse l § 310.20

 Ne g o tia te o n fe e s  Pre fe re nc e fo r g e o g ra phic pro ximity  Sha re re so urc e s a mo ng c o unse l whe re no

c o nflic t is c re a te d

 Monitor

wor k and billing for budge t c omplianc e

T ra ve l Guide line s

 Se rvic e Pro vide rs ma y b ill full ho urly ra te fo r up

to six ho urs o f tra ve l b y a uto mo b ile to o r fro m a de stina tio n, b ut mo re tha n six ho urs sho uld b e b ille d a t ha lf the ho urly ra te .

 T

ra ve l time a t o r a ro und the de stina tio n ma y b e b ille d a t full ho urly ra te .

 Wo rk pe rfo rme d w hile tra ve ling (i.e ., w hile o n a

pla ne ) sho uld b e b ille d a t full ho urly ra te , b ut

• the rw ise no n-a uto mo b ile tra ve l time sho uld b e

b ille d a t ha lf the ho urly ra te if w o rk no t pe rfo rme d.

 Che c k lo c a l rule s re g a rding tra ve l a utho riza tio n.

Hig hlig ht Co st E ffic ie nc ie s!

 E

xpla in c o st sa ving me a sure s

• Sha re d re so urc e s
• Ne g o tia te d a lo w e r ra te o r a tra ve l ra te
• Use o f a sso c ia te o r pa ra le g a l time
• Co mb ine c o urt se a rc he s / inte rvie w s o n

trips

• Wo rk tha t is no t b ille d

Pre pa re Budg e t a nd Suppo rting Do c ume nts

 Budg e ting Wo rkshe e t / E

xc e l Spre a d she e t

 Mo tio n with suppo rting Me mo ra ndum to

Appro ve Budg e t – e x pa rte unde r se a l

• Budg e t – e x pa rte unde r se a l
• Pro po se d Orde r Appro ving Budg e t to

b e file d unde r se a l

Wha t Ha ppe ns Whe n yo ur F unding Re q ue st is De nie d o r Re duc e d?

Mo ve fo r re c o nside ra tio n in the

distric t c o urt

Re q ue st e vide ntia ry he a ring Ma y b e a ppe a la b le (unlike

vo uc he r re vie w)

Ma na g ing Disc o ve ry in Me g a Ca se s

NAT I ONAL L I T I GAT I ON SUPPORT T E AM Se a n Bro de ric k 510.637.1950

se an_br

• de r

ic k@fd.or g

K e lly Sc rib ne r 510.637.1952

Ke lly_sc r ibne r @fd.or g

E SI E le c tro nic a lly Sto re d I nfo rma tio n

Mixe d me dia fro m multiple so urc e s

 E

le c tro nic surve illa nc e (a udio a nd vide o )

 Ja il c a lls a nd visits  Co mpute rs, la pto ps, mo b ile de vic e s  So c ia l me dia  E

le c tro nic c o mmunic a tio ns (e ma il, te xts)

 Ce ll pho ne da ta  GPS tra c ke r  Ba nk re c o rds a nd fina nc ia l do c ume nts

Ask the Judg e to He lp

 Ask fo r de finite disc o ve ry c ut-o ff da te s.  Ask fo r a n o rde r re q uiring the g o ve rnme nt

to pinpo int re le va nt disc o ve ry – Whic h ma te ria ls a re re le va nt to whic h De fe nda nt?

 Ask fo r a n o rde r re q uiring the g o ve rnme nt

to pro vide disc o ve ry indic e s.

 Ask fo r a n o rde r re q uiring the g o ve rnme nt

to pre pa re tra nsc ripts o f re c o rding s.

Ge t a Pla n

 Org a niza tio n

• T

e le sc o pe the ma te ria ls into ma na g e a b le , se a rc ha b le fo lde rs.

 Prio ritiza tio n via a b ro a d unde rsta nding o f

the c a se thro ug h:

• L

a w e nfo rc e me nt re po rts

• a ffida vits in suppo rt o f wa rra nt a pplic a tio ns
• Clie nt inte rvie ws

 T

a rg e te d Re vie w

• Ho ne in o n ma te ria ls mo st re le va nt to g uilt

fo r pro duc tive ple a disc ussio ns o r tria l pre p.

E SI I ssue s

 Pro je c t Ma na g e me nt b y skille d sta ff  She e r vo lume o f uno rg a nize d ma te ria ls in

multiple fo rma ts

 Se a rc ha b ility – re q uire s fo rma tting o r se a rc h

so ftwa re

 Co mpa tib ility pro b le ms  Que rie s – ke y wo rd se a rc he s  F

ile Na ming – la c k o f c o nsiste nc y

 L

a c k o f Inde x o r Ba te s numb e ring

 Re dunda nt file s  Co rrupte d file s  Inc o mple te o r missing disc o ve ry – wha t sho uld

ha ve b e e n inc lude d b ut wa s no t

I ssue s in Ca pita l Ca se s

 De ve lo p a te a m whic h inc lude s a de q ua te suppo rt

pe rso n(s) fo r re c o rds c o lle c tio n a nd o rg a niza tio n

 Pre -Autho riza tio n b udg e t

• DOJ / USAO c a se sp e c ific c o nsid e ra tio ns
• Ne e d fo r te a m me mb e r(s) tra ine d in d e te c ting me nta l

he a lth a nd / o r inte lle c tua l imp a irme nt

• F

und ing fo r fa c t a nd mitig a tio n inve stig a tio n

• I

nve stig a te a lle g e d a g g ra va to rs

• Bro a d inve stig a tio n o f mitig a ting e vid e nc e
• Bud g e t fo r a mp le c lie nt c o nta c ts
• I

d e ntify me ntal he alth issue s / inte lle c tual d isability as c ate g o ric al bar

• Po te ntial fo r o ffe ring life ple a e arly o n
• Bud g e t fo r atto rne y fe e s no t mand ato ry ($100,000 thre sho ld ) but

ad visable

I ssue s in Ca pita l Ca se s

 Po st-Autho riza tio n Budg e t

• Clie nt – c e nte re d re p re se nta tio n

 Unc o ve r me nta l he a lth / ID / Mitig a tio n  Build re la tio nship fo r ple a po te ntia l  E

na b le disc o ve ry re vie w with inc a rc e ra te d c lie nt

 NOT

E tra ve l issue s!

• T

e a m Ap p ro a c h

 Pla n to use lo we r c o st se rvic e pro vide rs e spe c ia lly fo r

re c o rds c o lle c tio n a nd do c ume nt ma na g e me nt

 Ne e d fo r re g ula r te a m me e ting s a mo ng c o re me mb e rs

• I

nvo lve re so urc e c o unse l fo r a ssista nc e

 De ve lo p ing fund ing re q ue sts  I

d e ntifying e xp e rts

 Re se a rc h e .g .

 E

vo lving 8th Ame ndme nt jurisprude nc e

 Na tio na l issue s a nd tre nds (e .g . c a te g o ric a l e xc lusio ns,

disc o ve ry in BOP c a se s)

I ssue s in Ca pita l Ha b e a s Ca se s

 Co ntinuity o f re pre se nta tio n inc luding sta ys,

c le me nc y, c o mpe te nc y, Rule 60(b ) mo tio n

• 2254 – ma y e xte nd to e xha ustio n in sta te c o urt

 One ye a r sta tuto ry de a dline  F

a c t b a se d suppo rt fo r ne e d to pro c e e d e x parte

 Re c o rd c o lle c tio n a nd re vie w  Clie nt c o mmunic a tio ns  2254 c o unse l – Ma rtine z / T

re vino c la ims

• F

a c tua l suppo rt fo r inve stiga tio n to e sta b lish IAT C

• Mo ve fo r supple me nta l o r c o nflic t fre e c o unse l

Sug g e ste d pha se s Ca pita l 2254 Ca se s

 Pha se I

– a p p o intme nt, re vie w o f re c o rd a nd initia l inve stig a tio n

• Asse mb le re c o rd o f a ll p rio r p ro c e e d ing s, c o unse l a nd

DA file s

• Re vie w, d ig e st, d e ve lo p issue s
• Clie nt inte rvie ws
• I

nitia l inve stig a tio n

• I

nd ic ia o f sta te ha b e a s ine ffe c tive ne ss c la ims

 Pha se I

I – p re p a ra tio n o f p e titio n

• Ca use a nd Pre jud ic e Re vie w (Ma rtine z v. Rya n, 132 S.Ct.

1309 (2012); T re vino v. T ha le r, 133 S.Ct. 1911 (2013))

• Re ma nd to sta te fo r e xha ustio n – Ha rb iso n v. Be ll, 556

U.S. 180 (2009) fn 7

 Pha se I

I I – e xha ustio n, mo tio n fo r e vid e ntia ry he a ring , b rie fing o n c la ims

 Pha se I

V – d isc o ve ry, e vid e ntia ry he a ring , fina l b rie fing

Sug g e ste d pha se s Ca pita l 2255 Ca se s

 Pha se I – a ppo intme nt, re vie w o f re c o rd a nd

initia l inve stig a tio n

 Pha se II – pre pa ra tio n o f pe titio n  Pha se III

– e xha ustio n, mo tio n fo r e vide ntia ry he a ring , b rie fing o n c la ims

 Pha se IV – disc o ve ry, e vide ntia ry he a ring , fina l

b rie fing

 Pha se V - Sta y o f E

xe c utio n, Rule 60(b ) mo tio n, Cle me nc y Pe titio n

 18 USC § 3599 (e ); Guide line s, § 680.30

L inks a nd Re so urc e s

CJA Guid e line s: http:/ / www.usc o urts.g o v/ rule s-po lic ie s/ jud ic iary-po lic ie s/ c riminal- justic e -ac t-c ja-g uid e line s Wo rkshe e ts and e xplanato ry me mo rand a: www.fd .o rg Natio nal L itig atio n Suppo rt https:/ / www.fd .o rg / navig atio n/ litig atio n- suppo rt/ subse c tio ns/ what-is-litig atio n-suppo rt Fe d e ral De ath Pe nalty Re so urc e Co unse l: https:/ / www.c apd e fne t.o rg / Natio nal Mitig atio n Co o rd inato r: https:/ / www.fd .o rg / c jao rt/ c jao rt/ c o nta c ts.html# / ? pag e =13 Habe as Assistanc e and T raining Co unse l (HAT ): https:/ / www.fd .o rg / c jao rt/ c jao rt/ c o nta c ts.html# / ? pag e =10 Fe d e ral Capital Appe llate Re so urc e Co unse l: https:/ / www.fd .o rg / c jao rt/ c jao rt/ c o nta c ts.html# / ? pag e =8 Fe d e ral Capital Habe as Pro je c t (2255 Pro je c t): https:/ / www.fd .o rg / c jao rt/ c jao rt/ c o nta c ts.html# / ? pag e =9