Office of the State Court Administrator

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Office of the State Court Administrator"

Albert Malcolm Webster
5 years ago
Views:

Office of the State Court Administrator Minutes Gerald A. Marroney State Court Administrator Carol M. Haller Deputy State Court Administrator Legal Counsel Troy C.

1 Office of the State Court Administrator Minutes Gerald A. Marroney State Court Administrator Carol M. Haller Deputy State Court Administrator Legal Counsel Troy C. Singleton Administrative Assistant DIRECTORS Mindy Masias Human Resources David Kribs, CFO Financial Services Chad Cornelius, CIO Judicial Business Integrated With Technology Services Sherry Stwalley Court Services & Legislative Relations Eric Philp Probation Services RESPONDENT PARENTS COUNSEL WORK GROUP March 14, 2014, 10:00AM-2:00PM Ralph L. Carr Justice Center 2 East 14 th Avenue Denver, CO Attendance Work Group Members Present: Judge Karen Ashby, Chair (Court of Appeals), Judge Daniel Taubman (Court of Appeals), Judge Gail Meinster (1 st Judicial District), Chief Judge Claude Appel (3 rd Judicial District), Judge Mary Hoak (14 th Judicial District), Magistrate Carolyn McLean (20 th Judicial District), Vivian Burgos (Respondent Parents Counsel), Gina Bischofs (Respondent Parents Counsel), Davide Migliaccio (Respondent Parents Counsel), Wendy Lewis (Respondent Parents Counsel), Consuelo Williams (Respondent Parents Counsel), Pax Moultrie (Arapahoe County Attorney s Office), Laura Eibsen (Denver City Attorney s Office), Kathy MacKenzie (Denver City Attorney s Office), Jeff Koy (Rocky Mountain Children s Law Center), Betsy Fordyce (Rocky Mountain Children s Law Center), Linda Weinerman (Office of the Child s Representative), Alice Marris (Staff Attorney, Court of Appeals), Danny Davis (District Administrator, 5 th Judicial District), Janelle Brunin (District Administrator, 8 th Judicial District), Sherry Stwalley (Director of Court Services, SCAO), David Kribs (Director of Financial Services, SCAO), Bill DeLisio (Family Law Program Manager, SCAO), Amy Hendrickson (RPC Coordinator, SCAO) Work Group Members Attended by Phone: Judge James Schum (7 th Judicial District) Others: Mike Henthorn (SCAO), Sheri Danz (OCR representative for Linda Weinerman) 1300 Broadway, Suite 1200, Denver, Colorado Phone: (720) (800) Fax: (720) Web site:

2 March 14, 2014 Agenda Topics 1. Introductions Discussion: Work Group members introduced themselves. 2. General Updates Discussion: The ultimate goal of the work group was discussed. There is support from SCAO to transition the oversight of the RPC program from SCAO to a new oversight system. The work group s role is to make recommendations about what the new organizational structure should look like and what changes should be implemented to transition the program from SCAO to the new oversight system. The group approved posting minutes from the subcommittees on the SCAO website once they are approved. The group was updated about the pending legislative request to increase the hourly rate of GALs, ADC attorneys and RPC from $65/hour to $75/hour. It is anticipated that this will be approved. 3. Billing/Financial Data Subcommittee Update Discussion: The group was briefed on the subcommittee s first meeting and work plan. The subcommittee will be pulling and analyzing data from fiscal years in the following areas: total budget spent on RPC representation; the average hours spent on hourly cases; the average cost per appointment statewide and for each judicial district; the amount spent on hourly versus flat fee cases; the amount spent on fees above the flat rate; the amount spent on experts; the amount spent on specialty courts; the amount spent on appeals; and the amount spent on court costs. The subcommittee has identified areas where data is not currently available and ways to obtain that data in the future. In response to the subcommittee s inquiry, the work group asked that a request be submitted to include codes in the new CORE system to capture data related to court costs. At this time, the subcommittee will provide the work group with estimates until the group determines that more discrete data is required. The work group was informed about the current billing procedure. The judicial districts review hourly invoices (verify hearings occurred, mileage, etc) and once the invoices are approved forwards them to SCAO for final approval and payment. The judicial districts process all requests for reimbursement of court costs. The manner in which invoices and requests for reimbursement are handled varies by district. The SCAO processes all of the flat fee contract payments. Invoices for appellate work are processed by the clerk of the Court of Appeals and then forwarded to SCAO for payment once approved. 2

3 The subcommittee discussed whether the billing process should be centralized within SCAO. The benefit of having the judicial districts process the hourly invoices is that the courts have better access to the court file to verify billing requests. If centralized in SCAO there would be accounting impacts. The subcommittee will have to analyze what the impact would be and whether additional employees would be needed to handle the increased workload. The group identified the benefits of centralizing the billing process as being more efficient and less confusing as to which entity handles what task. The subcommittee will estimate what the cost would be if the entire state were converted to hourly compensation. The group debated the pros and cons of both compensation methods and the need to look at the impact of the compensation method on the quality of representation. The group discussed whether there is a way to measure the quality of representation under each method of compensation. The current structure of the flat fee contract was discussed and whether it needs to be restructured to be aligned with best practices. The group discussed the importance of recognizing the differences between the districts when making final recommendations regarding compensation methods. There was not agreement amongst the group about which compensation method would be best for the RPC. This topic will continue to be discussed at future meetings. The group agreed that RPC attorneys need to be surveyed to gather their input prior to any final recommendations being made. 4. Contract and Evaluation Subcommittee Update Discussion: The subcommittee updated the work group about its initial meeting. The subcommittee reviewed the current hourly and flat fee contracts and discussed the current contracting process. Currently each district has its own process and criteria that they use for awarding contracts. All but one member of the subcommittee agreed that a centralized contracting process is preferable to the current process. Members identified the following benefits of centralization: a consistent contracting process statewide; judicial officers would no longer be the primary decision makers regarding contracts; performance concerns would be communicated and considered during the contracting process; and implementation of a consistent and predictable evaluation process. The drawback of a centralized approach is that the judicial officers who know the attorney and their work may not have input about whether the attorney is awarded a contract. The majority of the subcommittee felt that the contracting process should move to a staggered three year contracting period to allow for an in-depth vetting process at the application phase. The contracts would continue to be at will. The subcommittee also discussed the minimum standards for new applicants. The subcommittee agreed that the criteria should not be based on the length of time the attorney has practiced but rather details of the attorneys experience in litigating contested issues, negotiation skills and communication skills. References from judicial officers who have been exposed to the new applicant in a court room setting should be heavily considered. The 3

4 group also felt that an assessment of the applicant s commitment to child welfare or public interest law should be explored. The group agreed that minimum training requirements prior to an attorney receiving his/her first appointment is necessary. The current requirement of 10 hours in child and family issues is appropriate though not consistently applied. The subcommittee recognized that the process for selection may be impacted by the geography of the district and the potential applicant pool available within the district. Rural districts in particular struggle to attract a sufficient pool of applicants while metro districts frequently have more applications than positions available. The subcommittee also discussed the evaluation process. All but one member of the subcommittee agreed that evaluation and selection decisions are best made by a centralized entity that is independent of the local judicial officers. The subcommittee discussed the evaluation and selection process used by The Office of Alternate Defense Counsel and The Office of the Child s Representative. The group agreed that evaluation of RPC performance should include: 1. Stakeholder Feedback ( judicial officers, court staff, in particular family court facilitators, appellate attorneys, County Attorneys, GALs and other RPC. 2. Feedback from clients to include a structured survey focused upon the accessibility of the RPC 3. Writing sample including pleadings 4. Court observations 5. Interview with the attorney either by phone or face to face. The subcommittee discussed the value of judicial officer input when making selection and evaluation decisions and that this input should still be sought if oversight is centralized. The Work Group discussed the subcommittee s initial recommendations and the following concerns were raised about centralizing the selection and evaluation process: judicial officers should have input because they routinely work with the attorneys and have valuable input regarding their performance, the pool of attorneys should be kept small to enable attorneys to dedicate their practice to RPC work, the criteria to obtain a contract should not be so stringent that it makes it impossible for rural jurisdictions to find attorneys to do this work, consideration should be given to jurisdictions individual needs and cultures, and practices should be considered that would allow attorneys to practice in districts where it is difficult to attract attorneys without the attorneys having to live in those districts, i.e. establishment of circuit riding groups. The Work Group felt that it is important to attract attorneys who are dedicated to this field and not those who just want to gain experience. The group discussed ways to recruit new attorneys such as working with the law schools, the juvenile law section of the bar association, the modest means task force, and establishing a mentorship program. 5. Appellate Subcommittee Update Discussion: The goal of the subcommittee is to find ways to improve the quality of RPC advocacy in appeals. The subcommittee agreed that it is important that D&N appeals 4

5 continue to be expedited. The subcommittee will request a case flow study of Court of Appeals and Supreme Court cases to gather information on the time elapsed between the filing of a notice of appeal and the issuance of an opinion. The subcommittee identified the following issues with the current system: the inability of some appellate attorneys to obtain transcripts in time to use the transcripts in preparing appellate briefs; appellate attorneys may not receive the trial record in a timely manner; written orders may be significantly delayed; and written orders are often written in boilerplate language. The subcommittee will analyze the reasons behind these problems and possible solutions. The subcommittee will evaluate whether an independent appellate office should be established and if so, should it be part of a trial counsel office or independent. The subcommittee will also evaluate whether establishing an appellate office would prevent the trial attorney from handling the appeal if so desired. The Work Group discussed the importance of communication between trial counsel and appellate counsel and the need to establish a process to ensure that trial counsel is providing appellate counsel with necessary information pertinent to the appeal in a timely fashion. The subcommittee will investigate how other organizations handle this issue. 6. Strategic Plan Discussion Discussion: The Work Group reviewed the strategic plan that was drafted in 2008 as a result of the RPC Task Force recommendations. A considerable amount of work went into developing the plan but then the work stopped. The Work Group discussed the barriers that were encountered with implementing the strategic plan. The barriers that were identified were the economy, loss of the Family Representation Coordinator position and lack of political support. In fiscal year 2010, the Judicial Department had to reduce its budget by 18.6 million dollars due to budget shortfalls. This resulted in the loss of 266 full-time employee positions in the courts and probation. The Family Representation Coordinator left SCAO around October of 2008 and the position was not filled based on budgetary concerns. With this position empty, there was no one focused on RPC issues. Additionally, there was a lack of political support for this issue at that time. The Work Group discussed how the strategic plan was developed and the need for data to support any legislative requests. The group must be able to articulate what the proposed changes are and why they are necessary, how they will result in better outcomes for families, and what benefits the group hopes to gain from the changes. If specific data is not available the group must still be able to articulate the above factors. The group discussed possible sources of data that could help support requests for increased funding in this area. Possible data sources are programs in other states and information collected as part of the current billing system. The group discussed the importance of data collection and the need to identify data points that will aid in the evaluation of attorneys and the oversight model in the future. 5

6 7. Closing Remarks and Next Meeting Date The next meeting will be May 30, 2014 from 10:00 2:00. 6

Colorado Supreme Court Rules of Juvenile Procedure Committee Minutes of March 24, 2017 Meeting

Colorado Supreme Court Rules of Juvenile Procedure Committee Minutes of March 24, 2017 Meeting The Rules of Juvenile Procedure Committee was called to order by Judge Ashby at 9:36 a.m., in the supreme