1719 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE RE: FY '02 CITY OPERATING BUDGET - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Friday, 2/23/01 10:15 a.m. - - - BILL 010005 - Re FY '02 City Operating Budget PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL, Vice Chair COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK J. DICICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 1720 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET I N D E X First Judicial District Honorable Frederica Massiah-Jackson, President Judge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joseph DiPrimio, Esq., Court Administrator. . Kevin Cross, Deputy Court Administrator for Financial Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . Carl Primavera, Esq., Chancellor. . . . . . . Philadelphia Bar Association Stanley Krakower, Chair, Criminal Law Section 9 Philadelphia Bar Association Robert Dubow, Director of Finance . . . . . . J. Green, Sheriff of County and City of Phila. Ronald R. Donatucci, Register of Wills. . . . Law Department Kenneth Trujillo, City Solicitor. . . . . . . Stella Tsai, Chair, Administrative Law. . . . Bill Grab, Office of Labor Relations District Attorney's Office Lynne Abraham, DA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leonard Deutchman, Economic and Cyber Crimes 1721 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET OPERATING BUDGET LEONARD DEUTCHMAN, Asst. District Attorney .. 1923 LYNNE ABRAHAM, District Attorney ............ 1926 GEORGE MOSEY, Deputy, DA'S Office ........... 1942 ELLEN GREENLEE, Chief Defender .............. 1956 BYRON CARTER, Director, Defender Assoc. ..... 1971 MARGARET TARTAGLIONE, City Commissioner ..... 1983 ROBERT DUBOW, Budget Director ............... 1987 BOB LEE, Administrator, Voters Registration . 1987 JACK LEARY, General Manager, SEPTA .......... 2003 RICHARD EVANS, Chief, SEPTA Transit Police .. 2013 BERNARD COHEN, Transit Operations ........... 2027 FRANCES JONES, Govermental Affairs .......... 2030 PAT NAWALKOWSKY, Infrastructure ............. 2051 JETTIE NEWKIRK .............................. 2075 FAY MOORE, Treasurer, SEPTA ................. 2077 RONDA COHEN, Community College .............. 2080 STEPHEN CURTIS, President, Community College. 2082 1722 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning, everyone. This is the continued public hearing of the Committee of the Whole regarding Bill No. 7 010005. The first department to testify this morning will be the First Judicial District. (Witness comes forward.)
Thank you so much for your patience. I appreciate it. Please identify yourself for the record for the record and proceed with your testimony. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Good morning, Madam President. I am here today, Frederica Massiah-Jackson, President Judge, Court of Common Pleas and Chair of our Administrative Governing Board. And I want to thank you for the opportunity to present our budget on behalf of the First Judicial District to you and to the entire City Council. I would like to introduce our court administrator -- reintroduce, actually, our Court Administrator, Joe DiPrimio; and our Deputy for 1723 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET Financial Services in Fiscal Matters, Kevin Cross. Mr. DiPrimio is going to make the presentation on behalf of the First Judicial District, but I am here and join with him and welcome his comments.
Good morning, Council President Verna. May it please Council, we are here today to present testimony on behalf of the First Judicial District's Fiscal '02 Operating Budget. You have already met our new president Judge Frederica Massiah-Jackson, who was elected by her peers in December of 2000, and she has also been appointed the by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to serve as of the president of -- or as the Chair of the Administrative Governing Board, which is the management body for all Philadelphia courts. I might also point out to Council that the Administrative Governing Board has now included the appointment of the Honorable Esther R. Sylvester as Administrative Judge of Family 1724 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET Division; the Honorable Joseph D. O'Keefe, as Administrative Judge of the Orphans Division; and also the Honorable Fortunato N. Perri as the Administrative Judge of the Traffic Court. The FY '02 General Fund Budget for the First Judicial District and Grants Revenue Budget maintains a continuation of the zero-growth, zero-reduction agreement entered into by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and City of Philadelphia. The First Judicial District is not seeking any additional funds for counsel for court operations. As our testimony depicts in Table 1, the total Operating Budget from the General Fund which we are seeking is $110,268,396. That is in addition to the Grants Revenue Funds, which have a zero other impact on the Operating Budget. Those Grant Revenue Funds total $35,487,410 and are set forth in detail in Table of our testimony. percent from our Class 100 Operating Budget, and it was in the spirit of cooperating with the Administration that we sought the concurrence of 1725 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and of our Administrative Governing Board to support this one-time reduction; and in fact, we have. However, it does seek an additional $3 million in Class 200, not for the First Judicial District's Operating Budget, but to increase the amount of funds available to pay appointed counsel on behalf of dependent children, families at risk, and those persons charged with a crime who are indigent but cannot be represented by the Defender Association of Philadelphia due to a conflict. The City's administration has made a priority of taking back the neighborhoods, reducing quality-of-life crimes, and I might point to Council the fact that they are being successful. In fact, we have seen an increase in Municipal Court cases alone of 40 percent from 1996 to the year 2000. Just from 1997 to the year 2000, the number of misdemeanors entering the Municipal Court have increased by 83 percent, while on the Family Court side, the number of dependent children have steadily increased. On average, we receive 37 to 3800 new dependency 1726 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET petition filings per year. This represents a significantly large number of cases coming into the court where appointed counsel are needed. We have also noted a serious growth in the number of appointments that are made on behalf of dependent children to the extent that 166 percent growth in the number of court appointments have been experienced by our court. We have determined that an additional $3 million would assist the First Judicial District in cooperation with the Philadelphia Bar Association, which provides the quality and high-level caliber representation on behalf of our children and families at risk, and also our indigent defendants because of the projections based on the rate of crime. Our statistics show an average steady rate of percent per year for all case types, from 1996 through to the year 2000. The objective of providing appropriate fee increase to see lawyers who deliver quality legal services and representing stressed families and children at risk is clearly justified.
In fact, the Legal Intelligencer and the Philadelphia 1727 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET Inquirer provided a report by the Public Interest Bar and Advocacy Committee on dependent court resources, and I commend that to Council, but essentially, one of the cornerstones of that report is the fact that the Commission determined that there must be fee increases in order to ensure that dependent children and families at risk receive quality representation. This past December, the First Judicial District reached an agreement with the City's Budget Bureau which allows the District to carry forward into future fiscal years any unspent funds from the line item for counsel fee payments, which would be earmarked exclusively for counsel fee payable, accounts payable, or other increases. The additional $3 million for this line item, if approved by Council, will permit the creation of a long-term funding apparatus whereby the court, with the cooperation of the Bar, will be able to meet the City's obligation to provide legal representation to dependent children, families at risk, and indigent persons accused of crimes. This strategy also provides the ability 1728 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET to establish a reasonable modest fee increase for all case types commencing in Fiscal Year 2002. In fact, we have met with the Chancellor, Carl Primavera, of the Philadelphia Bar Association and with the section leaders from the Criminal family Law Section and from the Family Law section and have begun constructive dialogues geared towards establishing appropriate fee increases for dependency and criminal appointments. Success with this strategy is contingent on Council's approval of the $3 million increase. Accordingly, on behalf of the First Judicial District, the Pennsylvania Judiciary, the Administrative Governing Board, the employees and citizens of Philadelphia for whom with we appreciatively work, we respectfully seek City Council's consideration and approval of our budget request with the supplemental fundings for the counsel fee appropriation.
Thank you. What was the agreement that the First Judicial District reached with the Administration concerning counsel fees this past December?
This past December, we 1729 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET met with Rob Dubow of the Budget Bureau and with Appropriations Chair Krajewski, and we went to them with the request that we be allowed to roll forward into future fiscal years any unexpensed counsel fee payments -- or revenue that is available in the line item for counsel fees. What we determined is that in the last two fiscal years, we had outstanding bills, and this is a gap between the number of appointments made and the number of fee petitions received. And on average, this gap is anywhere from to 13 30 percent. So what we've learned that as the gap 14 grows, these accounts payable continue to exist. 15 And, ultimately, if the debt were called today, 16 for example, there would not be sufficient funds 17 in that line item to cover the debt. 18 So with the support of the City's 19 administration, we look forward to the ability to 20 roll forward any unexpensed appropriation that would be in that line item. That then gives us the ability to pay future accounts payable and also gives the ability to create a pool or a reserve whereby we're able to go back and perhaps make adjustments for fee increases in future 1730 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET years.
Now, do I understand you to say that the Administration agreed to that?
That's correct. In fact, yesterday, at a meeting with Mr. Dubow, it's my understanding that we re-ratified that.
Mr. Dubow, do you mind coming forward, please. (Rob Dubow comes forward.)
Mr. DiPrimio while he's coming forward, if the First Judicial District is running surpluses that, by your own testimony, totaled over $28 million between FY '93 and FY 2000, why do you need additional funding for court-appointed attorneys?
Thank you, Council President. With respect to the First Judicial District zero-growth, zero-reduction budget, which was negotiated by the City and the Supreme Court, the District has steadfastly abided by this agreement. As noted in the spending plan of the City for PICA for 2000 to 2006, the budget 1731 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET surpluses are set to provide a appropriation for the First Judicial District, which will enable us to pay for all technology, capital improvements, education, and things of that nature. In fact, Madam President, the First Judicial District has not violated that. We have not sought one penny of additional funding for any of our technology. Perhaps your experience with other City agencies has been different, but we have not come to Council for anything. The surpluses that we do have been managed in a correct way and in a responsible way, and I can tell you that we are now at the cross roads of our planning, where we're about to begin certain expenditures. For example, we are putting in a new telephone system in City Hall in the child support operations, which will cost the First Judicial District $1.5 million, without any additional contribution from the City. In addition, we're going to start renovations of our 6th floor space. That gives us the ability to close the Wanamaker Building, which the City is paying about $28-a-square-foot rental; it's almost $2 million a year. But by closing that space and 1732 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET moving court operations back into City Hall, the savings would then go back to the City of Philadelphia, and not to the District.
So it goes back to the General Fund and not the court system?
It goes back to the General Fund, right. What we have done in the past, we've closed down operations in One East Penn Square, for example, and all of the funds that were saved in that framework reverted back to the General Fund. But in order for District to be able to make that move, and which we're in the process of doing, we have to do renovations to the 6th floor. Through negotiations with Joseph Martz and our court, we were able to realign spaces whereby the City received FJD space on the 7th floor, which is now dedicated for communications, City communications, and the FJD would be getting, or is getting, the 6th-floor east corridor of City Hall, but that space must renovated and put into usable court space. Our estimates total several million dollars to accomplish that, and we have 1733 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET already received four or five proposals in response to our request for proposal for our potential services. We are meeting to determine what our construction costs would be, and we can tell you, based on experiences with other jobs, that we're anticipating it to cost anywhere from 3 to $4 million to do those renovation. With respect to technology, after our competitive bid process, Deloitte Touche was retained to do a complete analysis of the First Judicial District's technology architecture, and we are now in the process of implementing those recommendations. For example, the wide-area network, which the court uses, goes back to the early '90s; it's a (indiscernible) system. As Council may no 19 (indiscernible) is out of business and is no 20 longer being supported. I think their support ends this March. So we have received estimates through the consultant, and we know, for example, that to replace that system, it can cost up to $5 million. All of the PC's which the City bought 1734 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET on a bond at the Criminal Justice Center, 700 items, are about years old, and they have -- 4 they have exceeded their useful life expectation. 5 We are now in the process of getting competitive bids to replace all of that equipment. So this is just an example of how those dollars are being used. The court could have spent money perhaps more quickly, but we believe that it would be irresponsible to just spend money for the sake of doing so, without a studied, concerted plan of how we would be spending the money. And we've presented the encumbrance, if you will, spending plan to Mr. Dubow, he has it. I'm prepared to answer any questions with respect that the Council may have about that, but it's only because of our ability to retain year-end savings that we've been able to responsibly move forward in making automation and technology a reality in Philadelphia's courts. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Madam President, I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce to you Stanley Krakower, who is here as Chair of the Criminal Law Section of the 1735 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET Philadelphia Bar Association and is here on behalf of the Philadelphia Bar. He has asked if he could make a few comments in support of our requests for increased counsel fees, at your discretion.
Thank you. Mr. Dubow, why did the Administration not include the $3 million that is being requested?
A couple of reasons. The reason -- one reason is we didn't get the request till after the budget process was through; but even if we had, we would look at this increase as something that should have been covered under the zero-growth agreement. And, for example, in prior years, as Mr. DiPrimio mentioned, when they were savings against budget, the First Judicial District got to keep that. On the other hand, I think that when there are costs that they're incurring from one of their initiatives, that they should bear those costs. And another part of it, too, is in the past, there have been years when the fees have been higher. I think in '97, they were 9.2 million, and they were only allocated 7.6 in 1736 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET the budget this year. So I think in the past, they've shown that they can actually incur higher counsel fee costs and still have savings that go back to the OPC.
Okay. Mr. Dubow and I have discuss, and not to suggest a debate, Madam President, but I might point out that in the past, whenever the City had a project that they wished to be initiated -- for example, electronic monitoring for pre-release to maintain the prison cap -- the City had supplemented the First Judicial District's budget for those types of projects. We respectfully submit that the need to expand counsel fee appropriation is tantamount to that type of a program because, quite honestly, no 22 one envisioned the rate of increase in the number of arrests, which have resulted by our very fine Police Commissioner. And we, the First Judicial District, is just like, for example, the District 1737 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET Attorney, the Police Department, the prisons, Community Legal Services, the Law Department, all of which have experienced supplements to their budgets, while, at the same time, have had to come back to Council for technological needs as well. The courts, on the other hand, have not come back to Council for any court-related expenditure or for any technological needs. That's the first thing. With respect to the increases, the First Judicial District established, and I will round it out, $7.6 million as a line item appropriation for counsel fees, and I'm going to suggest that that occurred back in 1995. Kevin; is that correct? '96. And that item had been established and has been consistently put into our appropriation. However, there have been shortfalls steadily, and the courts had been required by the prior administration, not without any willingness on the courts' part but just by de facto, what would happen is that the courts would have to go into its year-end savings, for example, and make up whatever the shortfall was. And we have 1738 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET calculated those numbers, and it is included in your testimony as an attachment, but to the tune of in excess of $10 million have come out of the courts' operating budgets and out of year-end savings since 1996 to supplement that shortfall in the counsel fee appropriation. I would respectfully submit that that was not the spirit or the intent of the zero-growth budget, nor was it the intent of the agreement with respect to the courts' ability to retain savings. Those savings clearly were intended for technology and for capital improvements, and we are using those funds for that purpose, albeit we have been forced and compelled to use those savings to the tune of $10 million to supplement counsel fees. We were we believe that the presentation and proposal to Council to be a responsible one. We believe that it is one with the spirit of cooperation with the Philadelphia Bar and under the leadership brought by President Judge Massiah-Jackson and the support of our Pennsylvania Supreme Court. I might add that we think this is a 1739 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET long-term funding strategy which will enable the courts and the Bar to cooperatively manage the pool of funds that Council would appropriate, and that we would be able to adjust rates of payments accordingly, and so that when times allow us, we can make reasonable increases, particularly in the area of dependent children and families at risk. That is the area that is crying out for justice. While at the same time, it will enable us to accommodate rates of growth of court appointments, which really trickle down because of the increase in arrests that the Administration is requiring. May I -- Madam President, I'd like to bring to Council's attention the fact that the Chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar Association, Carl Primavera, has joined us, and I believe Mr. Primavera might be willing to offer testimony in support of us today.
For the record, can you tell us what the current counsel fees are, for the record?
Yes, yes. May I defer to Kevin Cross for the specific on this, Madam President? 1740 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET
I am Kevin Cross, Deputy Court Administrator for Financial Services for the First Judicial District. In the current fiscal year -- that would be Fiscal Year '01 -- our projected counsel fee expense is about $7.4 million. That's about $400,000 higher than our actual expense in the previous fiscal year. We anticipate growth in two public growth: in the dependency area and also in the misdemeanor cases, where Mr. DiPrimio has testified that there have been increases in the number of appointments that have been made.
I realize that. However, I think my question is, can you tell us what the counsel fees are for the homicides cases or --
I just want 1741 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET the record to reflect that, please.
Madam President, for example: In domestic violence cases, the flat fee is $350. Dependency cases -- and the law requires the appointment of counsel for the adult parents or custodians of children at risk. It's a $300 flat fee in the first year, and $150 total in subsequent years. For children, it's $300, the first year; $150 capped for all subsequent years. So the combined total is $450 for a family for one, two, or three years, and these cases typically require several hearings and run in excess of 18 months on average. Juvenile delinquent cases are capped at $300.
Delinquent investigators and experts: $100. 1742 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET Non-homicide cases: $300 for preparation, plus the -- $600, excuse me, preparation, plus the first day, and then $300 a day thereafter for non-homicides. Homicides: $1700 in preparation, plus $400 a day thereafter. Homicides appeal: $60 an hour in court; $50 an hour out of court. Non-homicide appeals: $50 an hour in court; $40 an hour out of court. Homicide post-conviction relief cases: $60 an hour in court; $50 an hour out of court. Non-homicide PCRAs: $50 an hour in court; $40 an hour out of court. Professional services for homicide cases: $300 flat fee, plus $35 an hour. Professional service for non-homicide cases: $100 flat fee, plus $35 an hour. Municipal Court misdemeanors (obviously non-homicide): flat fee of $350.
Thank you. I have some other questions, but I notice that there are other Councilmembers that want to be recognized. 1743 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET So at this time, the Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Thank you, Madam President. First, could you explain what you mean by "capped" and what you mean by "flat fee."
Yes. CHAIRMAN COATES: Because those who are not members of the Bar, they may not understand what that means.
Yes. Because of the rate with which the counsel-fee expenditure was growing, the former leadership of the Administrative Governing Board appointed a committee which looked into the rate of cost, where they were currently, the cost centers, and come back with recommendations about how these costs might be brought under control. And, in fact, the committee consisted of members of the former Administrative Governing Board as well as three lawyers by then-Chancellor Frank Devine, George Newman being one of the lawyers. They also had a lawyer, Bill Love, who represented --
Well, my question 1744 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET specifically is, what does it mean "capped"? Why do you mention that?
I was trying to lay the groundwork for the answer. The idea of cap -- there were certain case types, like dependent children, where $300 was paid in the first year, but then $150 was paid in the second year, and it was capped at that $150, even if the case required more than the second year's worth of representation. So it's a bifurcated payment process -- 300 plus 150 -- but it could be that that case lasted in excess of the months or two years, which was envisioned. 15
But wouldn't that 16 mean that no matter how many days in court and no 17 matter how many hours spent -- 18
-- the total fee received by the attorney would be, if capped at $350 --
-- meant that he only received, or she only received, she only received, $350, no matter how many hours in court 1745 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET or out of court.
You are absolutely correct, Councilman. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: And also, Councilman, no matter how many years that case might last.
Yes. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: So that if a case lasted three or four years for various reasons of review of the circumstances of that child, the attorney is still limited and capped at that second-year amount of the second --
Which means the attorney has one of two choices: to limit totally the amount of time and energy spent on the case; or, in effect, to accept the case as a pro bono case.
Isn't that a fact? I mean, we want to get the real facts here because what we're trying to do is to find a way to permit the courts and the whole criminal justice system and the justice system involving indigent children 1746 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET with family problems to get justice in the courts.
And what has happened over the year, as I understand it, is that it's almost impossible to get experienced attorneys to sacrifice the time and energy needed to give proper representation, and that's one of the areas both in the family cases and in the criminal cases that the $3 million is intended to deal with. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: That's correct.
Is that accurate? JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: That's accurate, Councilman, yes.
Well, I -- Madam President, I have been involved for a number of years with the Criminal Justice Section and with the Bar Association generally in an effort to right this situation with respect to both areas. And it seems to me that it's absolutely essential to have this additional funding. The only question I have is, I'm not sure that it's enough because I thought that $3 million figure was what was needed probably 1747 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET just to deal with the criminal defense area, but at least it's a beginning, and we can test it and see, you know, what the facts really turn out to be. But it's a kind of a crime in itself, the way in which the people that appear in the courts are not being adequately represented and the burden that the private bar is forced to carry in cases where the Public Defender's Office is not available, oftentimes because they can't represent two different defendants in a case, that kind of thing.
So I would strongly urge to Mr. Dubow that this is a matter of great urgency that has to be settled. I don't know about the details of that original flat zero, flat growth operation, but there are many other ways. Since my son became a member of the bench and I've learned some facts about it, the whole structure of pay seems to be back in the medieval ages. They cap their salaries of employees who work for the courts at salaries so low that they're far below what we pay in government in the City 1748 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET Council and I'm sure throughout the administrative departments of City government. And so I think that your efforts to bring the courts up to date is a very fine step, and I welcome that. And I think we've got to find a way in City Council to give them support. And I think the Mayor, who is a lawyer, understands this. He's always, in Council, been a strong supporter of the Public Defender, of Community Legal Service, of proper defense of criminals. You have those who are charged with criminal offenses and with the indigent. So I just think this is a matter in which City Council ought to hold the Mayor's Office, you know, their feet to the fire until we get this properly resolved. And I'm delighted -- it's the first time it's been brought out this clearly, Madam President Judge and the administrative officer, in the fashion that it has been today. Thank you. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Thank you.
You're 1749 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET welcome.
And are we going to be able to hear from Mr. Krakower and Mr. Primavera? I think their insights on this are part of the --
We will recognize them, Councilman, at the appropriate time. Thank you.
Mr. DiPrimio, I want this record to be crystal-clear. How did you arrive at the $3 million figure? And tell us, what are the projected costs for counsel fees for FY 2002?
We anticipated the question, Madam President. And with Mr. Cross's assistance, we will put onto the record -- may Mr. Cross put it on the record?
Thank you. 1750 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET We looked at our current fee structure and looked at the cases that needed the attention the most and we decided that was in the Family Court area. The highest fee increases are in the Family Court area. They are projected out to be -- the proposal itself is a three-year proposal. We have projected to front-load the increases in the first year as much as possible but also keep some money available for projected increases in caseloads. So there's two properties to the plan. One is to increase the fees, and then also to provide some funds for additional caseloads, which we are experiencing. We expect that -- we have -- over the past six years, we've had a 6 percent rate of growth in our counsel fee payments and in the number of petitions that we pay also. These increases -- in each specific line item, one may be up and one may be down, but consistently across the board, it's about 6 percent. So we have factored a 5 percent increase in our caseloads for appointments over the next 3 years. So we have provided about 1.5 million for the increase in the 1751 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET caseload and about 1.5 million also for the increase in the fees. Now, with that increase in the fees, I would say about 50 percent of that is in the Family Court -- or maybe about 40 percent is in the Family Court area, 30 percent is in the Common Pleas criminal area, and about percent is in 9 the Municipal Court area. So we've tried to 10 distribute the increases in each court. 11
What do you 12 think your expenditures will be for the FY '02? 13
With the fee increase, it 17 would be about -- just one second, please. 18 It would be $8 million. That would be 19 just strictly with the fee increase. With the 20 projected increases in caseloads, it could be as high as $9.4 million.
$9.4 million. And that's with a. . . 1752 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET
I thought the question was, what was the increase? I'm getting the impression that this is in answer to what the total is?
Yeah, okay. The increase would be about $1.7 million over our appropriations of $7.7 million.
Would it be helpful to Council if we provided the rate of increase on case type? In other words, the actual rate that lawyers be getting based on the different models?
Is that in the information that you've submitted to us?
Yes, it is. It's Attachment 3, I think, in our budget testimony -- Attachment C.
Thank you. And while you're searching for the 1753 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET page --
-- can you tell us why you're asking for 3 million and not the 1.7?
We are trying to set up a long-term funding apparatus that will allow us to look at the fee increase and then also look at the case increase and to phase in these increases over a three-year period. We want to be conservative in our projection, and we don't know exactly how much the increase in our caseload is going to be and then also what the net impact of the fee increase is going to be. So we want to try and phase this in over a three-year period. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Madam President, I'd like to add to that comment, I've been elected as President Judge for a five-year term. I've already spoken to Mr. Krakower and to others about planning at least, if you will, a five-year plan at the very minimum, but we don't want to have to come before you each year to discuss counsel fees. One of the objectives of this administration is to put this issue behind 1754 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET us. We've extended proposals to the Philadelphia Bar Association. We're very pleased with the support of the Bar Association. We have every indication that the Bar Association is working with us. And, as you see, we have two representatives here who are going to be speaking shortly. And we feel that this counsel fee issue has come to a crisis situation. We're looking forward to a very positive and long-term plan for justice for the families of Philadelphia, for the children of Philadelphia, for the indigent defendants of Philadelphia. So rather than coming to you today for $1 million or 1.5 or some smaller amount, we're looking for a long-term plan in conjunction with the Philadelphia Bar Association, because we still have to work with the Bar to establish new caps and new parameters so that just -- if we are able to achieve any success with our proposal, we don't want to spend all of the money up, you know, in the first year. We have to work out a strategy for change.
Thank you. 1755 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET
For example, the numbers that Mr. Cross testified to, with the increase of a little over $8 million, it was based on a very, very conservative rate of increase; to wit, $50 per case and dependency. I would respectfully submit that we have begun the discussions with the Bar, but I don't know whether a $50 modest raise in a dependency appointment is going to get the job done. But, you know, we come to Council in a responsible way, because we say, is it 10 million, is it 15 million? We wanted to start somewhere, and what we have done is modeled. For example, if the first-year increase, instead of for dependent children, instead of being 300, is now projected at $500, then the rate of increase would be such that we would use the entire $10 million up in the first fiscal year. And so we could justify the $10 million, depending on what rate of increase we plug into the beginning. But I would respectfully submit to 1756 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET Council --
I would assume that you're really having a very difficult time getting competent attorneys to represent many of the clients at these fees.
I'm sorry to say you're correct. What we've experienced lawyers is that those stalwart lawyers, who, day in and day out, provided representation, be it on the criminal and side sadly on the dependency side, are now telling us that they cannot afford to make this type of case a substantial part of their practice because they can't pay their bills. And I'm a lawyer 15 years, Madam President, and I can tell that you 16 pro bono is an important part of what we do we do, 17 but the bottom line is that, you know, we do have 18 administrative overhead, and I know that my 19 colleagues at the Bar have administrative 20 overhead. And if they want to dedicate 21 themselves, even if it's 10 percent of their 22 practice to these types of cases, I respectfully 23 submit that it's cost-prohibitive.
And I would assume it takes more than just one court 1757 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET appearance to really address the case?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have done a little bit of work or expressed a fair amount of concern about this particular area. Councilman Cohen, as he pointed out earlier, has been working on this for some time, but as one of the non-Bar members, but still actively practicing until I'm caught, I do have a great concern about what goes on in the legal community. And as I was listening to some of these fees that are paid, whether it's the current fees or even subsequent, I was struck, and I guess I wondered, in the -- I guess in the other part of the world, or in the other part of the system, where people just hire their own attorneys because they have the means to do so, I do wonder from time to time what those fees kind of generally are or what -- I assume the person is more on an 1758 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET hourly kind of rate, and depending on the case and the complexity, it can run up tremendous figures. And so what strikes me first is that there's probably no one in this room who would ever want to be in the kind of situation where they're forced under these circumstances to end up in a court-appointed situation, with very good attorneys trying to do what they do, the best for their clients. But, I mean, one, they have a practice, they have lives. And unless they're just prepared to totally devote themselves to charity, which, you know, might work for about a year or so and then you're going to be out of business. And so, I mean, we do have a system here that fundamentally says, you know, you will get at the end of the day as much justice as you can afford. And that is, I think, not one of the tenets of what this country is all about. And then we have real financial situations that we have to come to grips with. And somewhere in between, there has to be some relatively happy medium that says, you know, we want good representation for people; no, you cannot on a 1759 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET regular basis maybe hire, you know, maybe F. Lee Bailey or Johnny Cochran, but, you know, you are going to be able to pay something that allows the person to put a decent amount of time and effort into these very complex cases that, I'm sure, in many instances, go way beyond whatever our estimates are in terms of days and times and other complexities. And, lastly, I also wondered what the other side is doing. If you're in a criminal situation, for instance, I wonder, you know, if we could ever calculate between the time and the resources and the experts and the like what are you faced with if you're in court as an indigent person and the full array of the government prosecuting you, guilty or innocent -- I mean, we'll figure that out when we get to court. And I think, for the most part, the government spends what the government needs to spend to put on its case. And so, you know, you're sitting there with a pocket knife and the other person has a bazooka. And then you say, Well, you know, but I'm trying to get my day in court here. And, I mean, we know, obviously, that that's not a fair 1760 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET fight. 7. I think, first and foremost, President Judge Massiah-Jackson and Mr. DiPrimio, you're to be commended for wanting to put forward something that is reasonable and responsible and also that lays out a game plan. My concern is that -- and this often happens during this time of year -- for the one day we have the intersection of all three independent branches of government trying to figure out a particular problem: you've got the legislative body; the administrative, represented by Mr. Dubow; and, obviously, the courts. I would like to strongly encourage, and I know that there ever been some meetings and discussions, and we'll be at this for a little while. I would like to think that there is still some opportunity to come to a meeting of the minds between and among all three branches of government about this.
7 or some other number, it seems to me that if some reasonable agreement can be made, at least 1761 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET for this year, in looking at your game plan and making other evaluations about what happens going forward. I think Judge Jackson said it very well in that, no, you don't want to be at the table under these circumstances every year, making this kind of request. And that in an optimal situation, you go through the budget process like everyone else, and then it's just already in the budget. But I think people need to, you know, better understand what the operation is all about, where you're trying to go, where we find ourselves, what the Administration wants to do. I mean, we're not -- I'd like to think that we're not at odds, but we are trying to figure out how to slice up scarce resources that are growing more scarce day to day. I think it also -- lastly, Madam President -- needs to at least be recognized that this is a situation that's also somewhat reminiscent of the situation with the School District, because lurking in the background of all of this is certainly the general feeling that, well, you know, the courts are supposed to be 1762 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET taken care of by the Commonwealth or by the State legislature some long time ago, and why are we still doing this and how did we end up in this situation. And during the number of years in the Rendell Administration, you know, every year, we'd only put half of the courts' money in the budget and the other half got stuck somewhere else, and we then acted like we were not going to give it to the courts 'cause we were playing this brinkmanship with the State and then we always came back with a transfer ordinance and gave you the money because we weren't going to shut down the courts. I mean, it just would be a complete and utter mess. So, I mean, that -- I think it just needs to be put on the record that all of these other things are lurking in the background that don't necessarily get discussed but that do affect what we do and how we do it. And if someone thinks that, you know, you've got another pot of money somewhere that you can tap into, then, you know, why are we being asked for something else. I think it just all needs to be brought out. 1763 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET I support some increase in this fee structure. Again, as I said earlier, I would not want to be in this situation. I'm not sure who I would end up with. I mean, I don't know if I could afford Mr. Primavera but, you know, he might knock the fee down a little bit just to be a nice guy. I think if we can get some agreement, at least at the moment, that you will continue to work on this during this budget process, and if there is some opportunity to come to agreement before these bills come out of committee, I'd like to strongly encourage that, but I do think that the fees should be increased. I respect the budgeting process that you're trying to go through. If we can match that up with the situation that we're in you -- you may not get everything that you want, but, I mean, we still all generally operate in an environment that something is always better than nothing. And if we can then plan for the future in a responsible fashion, we might be able to accomplish all of our respective goals. So I want to encourage that. And I know Mr. Dubow is looking forward 1764 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET to another meeting with you and will probably want to set that up right after you go through the guardrail there. I think he's checking his calendar right now, as we speak. )
So, Madam President, I would ask if we could keep your eye on this and make sure that whatever's going to happen does get some resolution while we're still in the hearing process, I would deeply appreciate it.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
In your testimony, you talk about new technologies and some of the things that you plan to do to make things more efficient. Could you describe how the First Judicial District's -- do you work with our technology people, the communications people? Are we coordinating some of these efforts to try and 1765 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET bring costs down and not to try to reinvent the wheel?
In an answer, yes. We work very closely with MOIS. I can tell you, going back to the original days when we were concerned about Y2K, for example, and I might add to Council that the First Judicial District's all Y2K expenses were paid for exclusively by the First Judicial District via the court (indiscernible), and not one penny came from the City's Administration, unlike other departments. And we're proud of that. We had no glitches through the Y2K nightmare. But I can tell you, we work closely with them. We partnered with them, for example, for the Internet, including the CityNet. We partnered with them on the daisy chain for video conferencing, and we do that in an effort to be compatible and to keep the costs down. So in a succinct answer, yes, we work very closely with them.
The new telephone system 1766 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET is a perfect example of intergovernmental cooperation. When my judges would say to me, Mr. DiPrimio, we need a phone system, and you can't get the switches, believe it or not, the switches that the City Hall courts were using were last built in the 1930s, and that they're not available. And through Commissioner Joe James, and his people, we've worked with them and they've been terrific about sending maintenance men down -- or mechanics down, I should say -- and they cobble together new switches out of old switches. Well, that's ridiculous. Every time we need a phone line or a phone line change, we have to go to Lois Schmidt, and it costs the City untold dollars every time a change has to be -- occurs. I went to the Board and I said voice communication is technology, they approved the expenditure, we did do it by the RFP process. In fact, we hired a consultant, Compass Consulting, 'cause we didn't know how to do this, but we worked with Joe James and we worked with Vince Costello and his staff. And we're very proud to tell that you we've selected a vendor, and the backbone is being run. We cooperated with the 1767 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET Communications Department to make certain that as we ran our backbone and our wires through the corridors, that it would allow growth for the City to the extent that the City wanted to piggyback onto that which we have run. So we're working very, very cooperatively with all of the people in communications in that area.
The City of Philadelphia, on a monthly basis, sends us the bills, and when we receive the bills, they're departmentalized. And then if there are any, for example, nonbusiness-related calls that are made, then that department has to reimburse the City. I do it myself.
Let's not talk about 1768 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET nonbusiness-related calls; let's just talk about your day-to-day operation. Does that money come out of your budget?
How many City vehicles does the First Judicial District have and how do you pay for those?
I -- it's my recollection that we may have as many as 80 vehicles.
I'm going to -- I'd rather not guess, but if I'm going to guess, I would say approximately 80 vehicles.
Some are paid for by the FJD by way of grants, others have been paid for by the City, to the extent that the City had requested the FJD to do new initiatives. For example, in the last budget, the City administration asked to us expand our electronic monitoring and fund it for that purpose so that they would stay in compliance with the prison cap. 1769 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET A part of that, the City bought vehicles.
So you have vehicles that are assigned to the First Judicial District that are not in your budget, that Fleet Management just provides you a vehicle, and that's City money that you get that is not budgeted?
That's correct. And I saw that in the report to PICA. Mr. Cross -- there is a -- and it predates my tenure in this position, but I believe Mr. Cross can speak to the vehicle plan that was worked out with the City.
There is some information that an agreement was reached in prior administrative years, going back before President Judge Massiah-Jackson and myself, but there was an agreement reached, and I'm and only privy to it by way of hearsay, that there was some funding accommodation, that a trade-off was made in order to provide those vehicles.
Excuse me. When Fleet Management was put together as a separate City agency, there were funds that were taken from every City department, and there was funds taken 1770 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET from the First Judicial District, and I think it may have been about $400,000 at the time that was put into Fleet Management to fund its operations. So we -- the First Judicial District did contribute to the formation of Fleet Management.
Thanks, that's good background. And also the parking of those vehicles, I believe the Department of Public Property pays for those. What I'm just getting at here is that there are a lot of things that aren't in your budget that the City of Philadelphia provides, like telephone lines, the monthly charges for the telephone bill, the vehicles that are provided by the City. The judges, the parking -- who pays for the -- does the State pay for the parking, or does the --
All parking for the First Judicial District vehicles is either on 1771 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET street, and that's minimal, or is paid for by the court itself out of our Operating Budget.
Okay. Where I'm heading here is, there's a lot of money that supports all operations, not just yours, that aren't really in the budget, we can't see it. Because, again, 80 vehicles are provided by Fleet Management, telephones are provided, parking's provided. So in many cases, there's a lot of money that support particular departments that we can't really identify, and I hope someday we can get there to see the real numbers. Because, again, I would assume the support that is unbilled for the First Judicial District is a significant amount of money. And, again, you're not the only game in town that -- you're not the only organization that that's occurring to; there's a lack of detail when it comes to those support issues. And I appreciate that background about that money moving out of there to Fleet 1772 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET Management. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Good morning.
Good morning, and good morning, Mr. DiPrimio. The area of questions that I have for you guys is relative to indigency. It relates directly to the Public Defender's Office more than to you; however, from my reading of the 1997 audit by Jonathon Saidel relative to the Defender's Office, there is a role that pretrial services plays in determining indigency and the appointment of a public defender for someone accused of a criminal matter. There seemed to be, in the course of the -- now, pretrial services is an area that the First District is responsible for administering?
Okay. There seems to be some concern in the '97 audit that pretrial services, the Public Defender's Office, the Bail Commissioner, the Municipal Court all have varying role in determining or investigating the true need of a defendant. And the reason I raise this, and I'm going to raise it with the Public Defender's Office, is that I've been getting anecdotes about individual specifically more so involved with drug-related crimes who are posting cash bail in the amounts of 1,000, 2,000, $3,000 in an effort to get out of -- you know, to get out of jail but wind up back in front of a Municipal Court judge with a public defender. And I guess the question is, are we doing a thorough enough job in the investigation of people, especially in drug-related, high-cash kind of crimes as to their true need, their true financial need? And I'm not suggesting that we should reduce the amount of money for the defender; what I'm concerned about is whether or not we're maximizing the dollars given to the Defender's Office and spread enough through to people who are truly in need, as opposed to people 1774 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET who, on paper, appear to be poor, but perhaps have some cash stashed somewhere as a result of their activities. If someone, you know, provides a $3,000 cash bail to get out, would that not indicate that there may be the wherewithal to hire a lawyer, with that kind of money?
If you could maybe go through a little bit about the process that is employed in regards to determining whether or not a defendant is, in fact, indigent. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Councilman, if you don't mind, Mr. Krakower is an actively practicing, criminal-defense counsel, and perhaps he might be able to answer that question.
I am the Chair of the Criminal Justice Section of the Philadelphia Bar Association. 1775 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET
And I'm here on behalf of that section. First, I want to thank Council for an opportunity to even speak to you. And with regard to that particular question, what I frequently see, in fact I'd say, the majority of the time is, bail is not posted by the defendant but by members of the defendant's family. And I would say in maybe three-quarters of the cases, when a defendant needs 1,000, 2,000 or $3,000 in order to get out, it is a parent, it is an uncle, it is a sibling, it's someone else who puts up the bail for the defendant. In drug cases what happens is that the District Attorney's Office and the Police Department have become very effective with forfeiture laws that were passed within the last five to ten years by the legislature, so that the funds that might be the product of drug profits are most frequently forfeited, and the forfeiture section of the Public -- rather, the District Attorney's Office is now taking over not only cash but automobiles, homes, real estate, and just 1776 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET everything else, and they're doing a very effective job of it. So that the image of the drug dealer with a load of assets available generally really isn't true anymore. And the other problem is that the drug dealers that most frequently get court-appointed counsel or defenders are the lower-level, bottom-of-the-barrel, street guys. The people who are doing imports from Columbia kilos at a time, they're hiring big-name lawyers, but the fellow with the $20 cap, you know, the --
I'm having trouble feeling sorry for him at this point. (Laughter.)
You're conjuring up this image of this poor, unsuspecting dude who's in trouble with the law. He's probably one of the main problems I have in keeping people in the City. 1777 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET
Well, maybe, Councilman, but let me point out one other thing that happens in the courts, and the judges know this and I deal with it every day. You have three or four fellows standing on the street corner, the police pull a raid, they're very effective, and they arrest all four fellows. It frequently -- I don't know how frequently, I don't want to take a guess at whether it's 30 percent or 80 percent, but it happens that all of the fellows on the street corner are not involved in the drug transactions that go on. We do have --
Conspiracy, all of them are charged. And the job of the court system and the lawyer is to sort out who did what. And of course, we have in this country, and I think we still try to adhere to it, a presumption of innocence. So you bring in these four fellows, and quite possibly, two of them are bystanders and two of them are really dealers, but all of them get 1778 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET charged and all of them need defense, and they have court-appointed lawyers to find what they're doing.
They're -- all of them are not charged with the same thing. If the four individuals arrested, two are in possession of narcotics and two or not, they're not charged with -- they're charged with possession?
Oh, yes, and they're all charged with -- they'll be all charged with dealing under the conspiracy theory. All four of them will be charged with the same thing, including drug-dealing. And the courts then -- we go to court and sort out who did what. And that's what goes on in the Criminal Justice Center.
Well, let me read you from Jonathon Saidel's '97 audit, and maybe you can enlighten me. He says: "The recommendations of the Controller is the process of interviewing defendants, verifying information, and assessing the financial ability of the defendants needs to be revised. The procedures utilized to assess the financial capability of the defendants to obtain their own 1779 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET legal counsel has not been amended in several years. The criteria for evaluating indigents should be revised to be consistent with the definition of indigence. "For example, the federal government issued guidelines for determination of eligibility for financial assistance. As for the City of Philadelphia, the income threshold, the primary procedure performed to assess financial capability, has not been amended in to 12 years. Currently, the effectiveness of the 13 process to only provide City-funded legal 14 representation to indigent individuals is not 15 evaluated. Perhaps a party independent of the persons or agencies who make the determination should evaluate the effectiveness of the determination process on a periodic basis. "In order to achieve the objective of providing representation to those who are unable to afford obtaining their own legal counsel, a methodology has to be designed, implemented, and performed which is effective, rather than performing a procedural process in which minimal judgment is used. 1780 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET "As part of the assessment, estimates for the cost of legal representation by private-practice attorneys must be incorporated into the assessment of the defendants' ability to obtain their own money. The defendant will have a greater financial need to obtain an attorney for representation in a homicide case than in a driving-under-the-influence case. The cost of legal representation must be a part of the assessment. Information from procedures performed need to be a part of the assessment process, not the sole support for a conclusion. To ensure if proper determination of eligibility is made, the system should attempt to appoint legal counsel after verification procedures have been performed and the assessment supports appointment of legal counsel. "Currently, the pretrial services has more verification and controls in place to ensure the proper determination of eligibility than the verbal process used by bail commissioners; thus, more determination should be funneled through this entity, with stronger controls. At PTS, additional controls need to be implemented to 1781 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET ensure accuracy of the determinations. There needs to be an enhanced supervisory function over the approval of eligibility determinations. At this level, the effectiveness of procedures, personal interview techniques, and documentation of determinations need to be implemented or further developed. "Conclusions, especially in those cases which contradict the information must be documented in the file. Conclusion on eligibility determinations is the primary means of feedback to measure effectiveness, trained personnel, and to improve the process. "In addition, we noted that nonresidents of Philadelphia, arrested in Philadelphia, if applicable, are provided City-funded legal representation. Statistics should be developed to track the number of nonresidents arrested in Philadelphia with the associated costs of providing legal representation to those nonresidents. " I know it was a long -- and I only read 1782 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET parts of it. Can you tell me what's been done since '97 to kind of improve that situation at PTS. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Councilman, I can tell you this: that since January 10th, when I was sworn in as President Judge, I've had the opportunity to meet with many of deputies in our courts. And among those deputies is Dave Preski, who's the Director of Pretrial Services.
I will talk to him and find out more detail from him about the revision of the guidelines. I cannot specifically give you information about what's been done in the last three years, but I can say this: that the number of employees in pretrial services has dramatically increased in the last three to four years. It used to be just a small unit of maybe 20, men 19 and women; today, there are over 100 men and women 20 with the bench warrant services and the pretrial 21 services investigating units. Those pretrial 22 service employees have more of a supervisory role 23 of these defendants before trial than ever 24 before. 25 And while I cannot specifically answer 1783 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET your concerns or address your questions about the indigency standards, I can assure you that I will talk to Mr. Preski to find out that information.
I appreciate that, Judge, and let me just say for the record that I am in no way suggesting that we should not provide legal counsel, or funding for legal counsel, for those indigent people who are accused -- again, accused -- of a crime, and the presumption of innocence is there. But I guess I'm somewhat concerned as to the lack of ability to track and to determine statistically whether or not we are effectively getting to the people who are actually in fact in need. I mean, there's nothing more ironic or more aggravating, I guess, than the City taxpayer paying for the legal defense of people who are terrorizing their neighborhoods and could afford to pay for that legal defense themselves. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: We agree with you, Councilman. We certainly do.
And any information you could provide I would appreciate. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Sure. 1784 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET
Madam President, I actually -- I only had a question for either Mr. Krakower or Mr. Primavera, so my light may still be on from earlier, but I only have one question for either Mr. Krakower or Mr. Primavera, and my light was on from earlier, I think.
I should have asked this earlier, in my first long-winded comments, but I was -- I am reminded that the two of you are here, and I wondered aloud earlier about the expenditures, I guess, made by either, in a criminal case, the prosecution, the DA's Office or 1785 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET some of the fees that people in the legal community legitimately do generate if they're not in a court-appointed-counsel situation. Could either of you shed any glimmer of light on that particular topic?
Excuse me. Identify yourself for the record, please.
Yes, Carl Primavera, and I'm here as Chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar Association. And thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. The Philadelphia Bar Association, which has over 12,000 members, is composed of attorneys in solo practice -- large firms, small firms, mid-size firms, government, public-interest firms and agencies. And the only thing that probably unites us is our desire to make sure that our tradition of public service is maintained; otherwise, we're across the table or on opposite sides of the cases. But we are united in that one item. It's my experience that in a commercial 1786 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET setting, lawyers are charging between $100 and $300 an hour, defending upon the case, the experience. And so what it really means is that from the time it took for me to go from my office to be here and to speak probably, I probably, if I'm charging a commercial client, will have been paid more than someone who's spent five years representing a parent who's going to have their rights terminated vis-a-vis their child or something like. So the effort here is not to compensate the attorneys who take these cases commensurate with a commercial rate or fairly on in any way with regard to the effort that they put into these cases, because there's just not enough money in the world to do that. But the effort really is to establish some effort and some signal to the attorneys who are willing to take these cases, that they're being appreciated, that their costs and overhead are somehow being helped out with regard to these cases. And really, it's just a signal to whose who are represented, whether on the criminal side or the family law side, that the attorney that's 1787 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET sitting next to them for prolonged periods of time is hopefully motivated not only out of the kindness of their heart and the tradition we have as lawyers to represent the indigent, but also that they're able to pay an investigator to go to the crime scene, to pay a psychologist to see if there's some mitigating factor in a homicide case, and basically to do the minimum job necessary so that due process of law is real and the commitment to equal justice is real.
Let me just make sure that I understand. And first let me say that I deeply appreciate your straightforwardness and open and honest statements about this. Now, in the chart that I have that's a part of the package, it's entitled "Proposed Fee Increase for Counsel Fee Payments," and I guess it's telling us what the current fee. It's fairly far back in the packet. Let me just make sure again I understand this. It says, "In the Family Division, for instance, an abuse case, the current fee per case type is $350." Now, does that mean if you are court-appointed and you get this case, that your 1788 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET entire fee for the case is $350?
That's correct. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Yes. Not 350 an hour.
Let me cut across that. Now, if you're not in a court-appointed situation. Let's say, unfortunately, you know, it was me, I'm sure I don't qualify for anything, and I'm just out in the open market, and whether it's someone I know or someone that's recommended, what would the person more than likely charge?
The same -- it's a -- "abuse" here, I'm assuming, is maybe child abuse as opposed to domestic violence?
Oh, well, I don't want to use that as an example if I'm going to be involved. (Laughter.)
When I was in active practice, I was a family law attorney. In fact, I chaired the Family Law Section in 1989 and 1990, and my practice was exclusively divorce and support and domestic violence. Some lawyers will, and I did as well, would take a case for a $500 retainer, and that's all you can get, because the client can't afford more.
But I will tell you that the amount of investigation that goes into those cases, domestic violence, and the seriousness of that particular offense is such that it warrants a $3,000 minimum retainer. I can tell you that because that's what I charged.
And all too often, your clients cannot afford to pay. My billing rate at the time was 165 an hour, and I'm going back to 1992. 1790 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET
Right. Well, I mean it sounds like -- I mean, what I'm getting out of this is literally, the full case expense in the court-appointed is outstripped an hour and a half into the case by the non- -- in the non-court-appointed situation. By lunch, that person's done with what the court-appointed person is going to get for however long it takes.
And when they break, the one has, you know, gotten 350, 400, and the other guy or lady is working for the next 6 months.
If you compare what you pay a plumber compared to what the attorneys make on these cases make, it's incredible, because you 1791 2/23/01 - FY '02 OPERATING BUDGET have to interview cases, you have to review the law, you have to travel, and there are multiple hearings because there's typically either the need for a continuance for one of the parties, or the case hasn't been heard because of the lack of witnesses.
So these clearly are not meant, as I said before, to approach anything in the commercial context. And our association has concerns about even the 3 million being adequate.