[Senate Report 114-359]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 645
114th Congress } { Report
SENATE
2d Session } { 114-359
_______________________________________________________________________
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUDICIAL
FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY ACT
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
to accompany
S. 2966
TO UPDATE THE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR
JUDGES OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS, AND TO
MAKE OTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COURTS
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
September 27, 2016.--Ordered to be printed
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
59-010 WASHINGTON : 2016
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
RAND PAUL, Kentucky JON TESTER, Montana
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
JONI ERNST, Iowa GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
BEN SASSE, Nebraska
Christopher R. Hixon, Staff Director
Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Chief Counsel
Patrick J. Bailey, Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs
Rebecca N. Nuzzi, Professional Staff Member
Gabrielle A. Batkin, Minority Staff Director
John P. Kilvington, Minority Deputy Staff Director
Mary Beth Schultz, Minority Chief Counsel
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Calendar No. 645
114th Congress } { Report
SENATE
2d Session } { 114-359
======================================================================
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUDICIAL FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY ACT
_______
September 27, 2016.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Johnson, from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 2966]
The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 2966) to update the
financial disclosure requirements for judges of the District of
Columbia courts, and to make other improvements to the District
of Columbia courts, having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill,
as amended, do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose and Summary..............................................1
II. Background and Need for the Legislation..........................2
III. Legislative History..............................................4
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................5
V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact..................................5
VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................6
VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............7
I. Purpose and Summary
S. 2966, the District of Columbia Judicial Financial
Transparency and Courts Improvement Act of 2016, revises the
financial disclosure requirements for District of Columbia
Superior Court and District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(collectively D.C. Courts) judges. The revisions establish new
dollar thresholds for which judges and their spouses are
required to report to the District of Columbia Commission on
Judicial Disabilities and Tenure.
In addition, S. 2966 strengthens and enhances the D.C.
Courts' operational capacity by addressing issues related to
caseloads and efficiency. The bill authorizes the use of
Magistrate Judges in the Probate Division of the D.C. Courts to
preserve access to justice that is timely, fair, and just for
self-represented litigants.
S. 2966 also reduces the amount of administrative work
required by the Chief Judges of the D.C. Courts by allowing
them to delegate certain approval authorities to an active or
senior judge, enabling them more time to see to the efficient
operation of the D.C. Courts. Finally, the legislation
simplifies payment methods for court fees by authorizing the
use of credit cards and electronic funds transfer.
II. Background and the Need for Legislation
The District of Columbia is an autonomous, permanent
Federal district that serves as the ``Seat of the Government of
the United States'' under Article I of the Constitution.\1\
Congress has the power ``to exercise exclusive Legislation in
all Cases whatsoever'' within this Federal district.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 8, cls. 8, 17.
\2\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial disclosure requirements
Financial disclosure reports serve as ``safeguards against
conflicts of interest and abuse of the public trust by
government officials.''\3\ Under current law, D.C. Superior
Court and D.C. Court of Appeals judges are required to file
annual financial disclosure reports.\4\ However, unlike the
disclosure reports for other Federal judges,\5\ very little of
these reports is available to the public.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\H. Doc. No. 95-139, 95 Cong. 1 sess.
\4\D.C. Code Sec. 11-1530.
\5\U.S.C. app. Sec. 105(b).
\6\District of Columbia Earns `F' for Judicial Financial
Disclosure, The Center for Public Integrity (Dec. 4, 2013, 12:01 AM),
available at https://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/12/04/13725/district-
columbia-earns-f-judicial-financial-disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the disclosure requirements for D.C. Courts judges
were codified in 1970, lawmakers modeled them after the rules
that were in place at the time for Federal judges.\7\ These
rules were subsequently modified when, in the wake of the
Watergate scandal, Congress passed the Ethics in Government Act
of 1978, which enhanced public disclosure requirements in an
effort to ``preserve and promote the integrity of public
officials and institutions.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\D.C. Code Sec. 11-1530 (1978).
\8\Pub. L. No. 95-521, 92 Stat. 1824 (1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 amended the
U.S. Code, but did not amend the D.C. Code, D.C. Courts judges'
annual financial disclosure requirements were never updated to
reflect the 1978 changes.
This legislation would bring the financial disclosure
requirements for D.C. Courts judges in line with those
currently in place for Federal judges and enhance public trust
through enhanced transparency.
Authority of probate division to use magistrate judges
Under current D.C. Code, the Chief Judge of the D.C.
Superior Court, with the approval of a majority of judges in
active service, is authorized to appoint magistrate judges to
serve as judicial officers in the Superior Court. Magistrate
judges are authorized to make findings and enter final orders
or judgments in other uncontested or contested proceedings in
the Civil, Criminal, and Family Divisions of the Superior
Court, so long as both parties consent.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\D.C. Code Sec. 11-1530 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The caseload of the District of Columbia Probate Division
has increased in recent years, thanks, in large part, to a rise
in the number of incapacitated persons under court supervision
in adult guardianship cases.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\The Caseload of the Probate Division increased from 7,240 total
cases as of August 30, 2014, including 2,432 adult guardianship cases,
to a caseload of 7,563 total cases, including 2,602 adult guardianship
cases as of July 1, 2016. Information provided by the DC Courts to
Comm. staff on July 1, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between 2010 and 2015, the number of court orders issued in
Probate Division cases increased 123 percent, from 6,755 court
orders in 2010, to 15,044 in 2015.\11\ In the same time period,
the number of court hearings held increased 93 percent from--
2,008 hearings in 2010, to 3,882 hearings in 2015.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Id.
\12\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By granting magistrate judges authority to make findings
and enter final orders or judgments in the Probate Division,
this legislation grants the Chief Judge and District judges the
flexibility to address the issue of the Probate Division's
increased caseload and ensure the court's ability to serve the
public with fair, prompt, and timely access to justice.
Credit cards
While D.C. Courts are not Federal entities, they are
Federally-funded, and therefore must obligate and extend their
appropriations ``in the same manner as funds appropriated for
salaries and expenses of other federal agencies.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015,
Pub. L. No. 113-235, 124 Stat. 2353 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An increasing number of government agencies are accepting
credit cards as a form of payment. The D.C. Courts accept
credit cards for limited purposes through the website
pay.gov.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\Pay.gov, DCD Criminal Debt Form, https://www.pay.gov/public/
form/start/75717538.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allowing the D.C. Courts to recover the commissions that
credit card companies charge per use by exacting a fee from
users would significantly reduce their administrative costs. It
would also increase their operational efficiency, and provide
the public with a convenience that is otherwise commonly
available.
Increase jurisdictional amount for Small Claims Court from $5,000 to
$10,000
The Small Claims and Conciliation Branch of the D.C.
Superior Court was created in 1938 to:
[I]mprove administration of justice in small civil
cases and make the service of the municipal court more
easily available to all of the people whether of large
or small means; to simplify practice and procedure in
the commencement, handling, and trial of such cases; to
eliminate delay and reduce costs; to provide for
installment payment of judgments; and generally to
promote confidence of the public in the courts through
provision of a friendly forum for disputes, small in
amount but important to the parties.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Pub. L. No. 75-441, 52 Stat. 103 (1938).
Congress has authorized an increase in the jurisdictional
amount of the Small Claims Branch several times over the
years.\16\ The most recent increase was in 1994, when the
amount was raised from $2,000 to its current level of
$5,000.\17\ Past increases in the jurisdictional amount have
resulted in a greater number of civil cases eligible for
consideration in a less formal setting, which is both faster
and less expensive. This has the added benefit of reducing the
caseload at the D.C. Superior Court level, thus freeing up
resources and personnel to address the District's criminal and
complex civil dockets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\See Pub. L. No. 87-203, 75 Stat. 470 (1961) (from $50 to $150);
Pub. L. No. 91-358, 84 Stat. 489 (1970) (from $150 to $750); Pub. L.
No. 103-303, 108 Stat. 1564, Sec. 2(a) (1994) (from $2,000 to $5,000).
\17\Pub. L. No. 103-303, 108 Stat. 1564, 2(a) (1994) (from $2,000
to $5,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This bill will adjust the small claims jurisdictional
amount to reflect the historical effect the past 22 years has
had on inflation. According to data from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics on inflation in the Consumer Price Index, a claim
worth $5,000 in 1994 would be worth $8,105 in 2016.\18\ Raising
the jurisdictional limit to $10,000 not only decreases the
burden on the Superior Court personnel and resources; it also
preserves access to Small Claims courts for litigants according
to inflation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\CPI Inflation Calculator, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, available at http://www.bls.gov/data/
inflation_calculator.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authority to allow the chief judges to delegate authority to approve
certain vouchers
Under current law, Criminal Justice Act Vouchers (CJA
Vouchers) must be approved directly by chief judges of the D.C.
Superior Court and the D.C. Court of Appeals. Such
administrative work can detract from the amount of time chief
judges have to devote to the efficient operation of the courts
and the management of their resources. This authority is
similar to that which is provided to chief judges in the
Federal courts.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\``The chief judge may delegate such approval authority to an
active or senior judge.'' 18 U.S.C. 3006A (d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Legislative History
S. 2966, the D.C. Judicial Financial Transparency and
Courts Improvement Act of 2016, was introduced on May 23, 2016,
by Senator James Lankford with Senators Ron Johnson, Tom
Carper, and Cory Booker. The bill was referred to the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
The Committee considered S. 2966 at a business meeting on
May 25, 2016. During the business meeting, an amendment by
Senator Lankford was offered and adopted. Both the amendment
and the legislation as modified were passed by voice vote with
Senators Johnson, Portman, Paul, Lankford, Ayotte, Ernst,
Sasse, Carper, McCaskill, Tester, Baldwin, Heitkamp, Booker,
and Peters present.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Bill, as Reported
Section 1. Short title
This section establishes the short title of the bill as the
``District of Columbia Judicial Financial Transparency Act.''
Section 2. Financial disclosure requirements for judges of District of
Columbia courts
Establishes rules requiring each judge of the District of
Columbia courts to submit financial disclosure reports to the
D.C. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure, and
outlines the reporting thresholds for each source of outside
income.
Section 3. Authority of probate division to use magistrate judges
Authorizes the use of magistrate judges in the probate
division of the D.C. Superior Court.
Section 4. Authority of District of Columbia courts to accept certain
types of payments
Section 4 expands the payment methods permitted by the D.C.
Courts to include check payments, credit card payments, and
electronic funds transfer, in addition to the previously
accepted forms of cash or money order.
Section 5. Increase in maximum amount in controversy permitted for
cases under jurisdiction of Small Claims and Conciliation
Branch of Superior Court
This section increases the small claims court jurisdiction
from $5,000 to $10,000.
Section 6. Authority to approve compensation of attorneys in excess of
maximum amount
Section 6 authorizes chief judges to delegate CJA Voucher
approval authority to an active or senior judge in the court in
which the chief judge sits. This section also clarifies that
chief judges may also delegate authority to approve counsel for
Child Abuse and Neglect vouchers in addition to CJA vouchers.
V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact
Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has
considered the regulatory impact of this bill and determined
that the bill will have no regulatory impact within the meaning
of the rules. The Committee agrees with the Congressional
Budget Office's statement that the bill contains no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs
on state, local, or tribal governments.
VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
August 3, 2016.
Hon. Ron Johnson,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2966, the District
of Columbia Judicial Financial Transparency Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew
Pickford.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall.
Enclosure.
S. 2966--District of Columbia Judicial Financial Transparency Act
S. 2966 would change portions of the District of Columbia
Official Code that governs the D.C. Courts system. Under
current law, the Congress annually appropriates funds for the
District of Columbia Courts; and its expenditures are recorded
in the federal budget. The legislation would revise the
financial disclosure requirements for District of Columbia
judges. The revisions would establish new dollar thresholds and
requirements for reporting to the District of Columbia
Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure. The bill also
would allow the District of Columbia Courts to collect fines,
fees, and other payments via credit card or electronic funds
transfer. In addition, S. 2966 would provide new authorities to
certain judges and increase the limit for small claims cases in
the District of Columbia from $5,000 to $10,000.
Based on an analysis of the administrative costs of the
District of Columbia Courts, CBO estimates that the bill would
have an insignificant effect on federal spending. However, the
new financial disclosure requirements would require the
District of Columbia to add up to one new staff member.
Although the District of Columbia Small Claims Court could be
presented with more claims under the bill, the number of judges
addressing those claims would not be increased by the
legislation. Cases in the setting of a small claims court are
often more expeditious and inexpensive to resolve.
Enacting the legislation would not affect direct spending
or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
CBO estimates that enacting S. 2966 would not increase direct
spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive
10-year periods beginning in 2027.
The revisions and increases in jurisdictional limits in the
bill would be intergovernmental mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) because they alter local
laws. CBO estimates that the aggregate costs of the mandates
would be minimal and fall well below the threshold established
in the UMRA ($77 million in 2016, adjusted annually for
inflation). S. 2966 contains no private-sector mandates.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Matthew
Pickford (for federal costs) and Rachel Austin (for the
intergovernmental mandates). The estimate was approved by H.
Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget
Analysis.
VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows: (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in brackets, new matter is
printed in italic, and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
CODE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
* * * * * * *
TITLE 11--ORGANIZATION AND JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 13--SMALL CLAIMS AND CONCILIATION BRANCH OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
* * * * * * *
Subchapter II--Jurisdiction and Procedures
* * * * * * *
SEC. 11-1321 EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF SMALL CLAIMS.
The Small Claims and Conciliation Branch has exclusive
jurisdiction of any action within the jurisdiction of the
Superior Court which is only for the recovery of money, if the
amount in controversy does not exceed [$5,000] $10,000,
exclusive of interest, attorney fees, protest fees, and costs.
An action which affects an interest in real property may not be
brought in the Branch. If a counterclaim, cross claim, or any
other claim or any defense, affecting an interest in real
property, is made in an action brought in the Branch, the
action shall be certified to the Civil Division.
CHAPTER 15--JUDGES OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS
* * * * * * *
Subchapter II--The District of Columbia Commission on Judicial
Disabilities and Tenure.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 11-1530. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(a) Pursuant to such rules as the Commission shall
promulgate, each judge of the District of Columbia courts
shall, within one year following the date of enactment of the
District of Columbia Court Reorganization Act of 1970 and at
least annually thereafter, file with the Commission [the
following reports of the judge's personal financial interests]
a report containing the following information:
(1) [A report of the judge's income and the judge's
spouse's income for the period covered by the report,
the sources thereof, and the amount and nature of the
income received from each such source.]
(A) The source, type and amount of the
judge's income which exceeds $200 (other than
income from the United States government and
income referred to in subparagraph (C)) for the
period covered by the report.
(B) The source and type of the judge's
spouse's income which exceeds $1,000 (other
than income from the United States government
and income referred to in subparagraph (C)) for
the period covered by the report.
(C) The source and type of income which
consists of dividends, rents, interest, and
capital gains received by the judge and the
judge's spouse during such period which exceeds
$200 in amount or value, and an indication of
whether the amount or value of such an item of
income is
(i) not more than $1,000;
(ii) greater than $1,000 but not more
than $2,500;
(iii) greater than $2,500 but not
more than $5,000;
(iv) greater than $5,000 but not more
than $15,000;
(v) greater than $15,000 but not more
than $50,000;
(vi) greater than $50,000 but not
more than $100,000;
(vii) greater than $100,000 but not
more than $1,000,000;
(viii) greater than $1,000,000 but
not more than $5,000,000; or
(ix) greater than $5,000,000.
(2) The name and address of each private foundation
or eleemosynary institution, and of each business or
professional corporation, firm, or enterprise in which
the judge was an officer, director, proprietor, or
partner during such period
(3) The identity and category of value (as set forth
in subsection (b)) of each liability of [$5,000]
$10,000 or more owed by the judge or by the judge and
the judge's spouse jointly at any time during such
period.
(4) The source and value of all gifts in the
aggregate amount or value of [$50] $250 or more from
any single source received by the judge during such
period, except gifts from the judge's spouse or any of
the judge's children or parents.
(5) The identity of each trust in which the judge
held a beneficial interest having a value of $10,000 or
more at any time during such period, and in the case of
any trust in which the judge held any beneficial
interest during such period, the identity, if known, of
each interest in real or personal property in which the
trust held a beneficial interest having a value of
$10,000 or more at any time during such period. If the
judge cannot obtain the identity of the trust interest,
the judge shall request the trustee to report that
information to the Commission [in such manner as the
Commission shall by rule prescribe].
(6) The identity and category of value (as set forth
in subsection (b)) of each interest in real or personal
property having a value of $10,000 or more which the
judge owned at any time during such period.
(7) The amount or value and source of each honorarium
of [$300] $250 or more received by the judge and the
judge's spouse during such period.
(8) The source and amount of all money, other than
that received from the United States government,
received in the form of an expense account or as
reimbursement for expenditures from any source
aggregating more than $250 during such period.
(9) The source and amount of all waivers or partial
waivers of fees or charges accepted by the judge on
behalf of the judge or the judge's spouse, domestic
partner, or guest during such period.
[(b)
[(1) * * *
[(2) * * *
[(3) * * *]
(b) For purposes of paragraphs (3) and (6) of subsection
(a), the categories of value set forth in this subsection are--
(1) not more than $15,000;
(2) greater than $15,000 but not more than $50,000;
(3) greater than $50,000 but not more than $100,000;
(4) greater than $100,000 but not more than $250,000;
(5) greater than $250,000 but not more than $500,000;
(6) greater than $500,000 but not more than
$1,000,000;
(7) greater than $1,000,000 but not more than
$5,000,000;
(8) greater than $5,000,000 but not more than
$25,000,000
(9) greater than $25,000,000 but not more than
$50,000,000; and
(10) greater than $50,000,000.
(c)
(1) Reports filed pursuant to this section shall,
upon written request, and notice to the reporting judge
for purposes of making an application to the Commission
for a redaction pursuant to paragraph (2), be made
available for public inspection and copying within a
reasonable time after filing and during the period they
are kept by the Commission (in accordance with rules
promulgated by the Commission), and shall be kept by
the Commission for not less than three years.
(2) This section does not require the public
availability of reports filed by a judge if upon
application by the reporting judge, a finding is made
by the Commission that revealing personal and sensitive
information could endanger that judge or a family
member of that judge, except that a report may be
redacted pursuant to this paragraph only--
(A) to the extent necessary to protect the
individual who filed the report or a family
member of that individual; and
(B) for as long as the danger to such
individual exists.
(d) The intentional failure by a judge of a District of
Columbia court to file a report required by this section, or
the filing of a fraudulent report, shall constitute willful
misconduct in office and shall be grounds for removal from
office under section 11-1526(a)(2).
SEC. 11-1732. MAGISTRATE JUDGES
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(j) A magistrate judge, when specifically designated by the
chief judge of the Superior Court, and subject to the rules of
the Superior Court and the right of review under subsection
(k), may perform the following functions:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) * * *
(A) In any case brought under Sec. 11-
1101(1), (3), (10), or (11) of the District of
Columbia Official Code involving the
establishment or enforcement of child support,
or in any case seeking to modify an existing
child support order, where a magistrate judge
in the [Family Division] Family Court of the
Superior Court finds that there is an existing
duty of support, the magistrate judge shall
conduct a hearing on support, make findings,
and enter judgment as provided by law, and in
accordance with guidelines established by rule
of the Superior Court, which judgment shall
constitute a final order of the Superior Court.
(B) * * *
(5) Subject to the rules of the Superior Court and
with the consent of the parties involved, make findings
and enter final orders or judgements in other
uncontested or contested proceedings, in the Civil,
Criminal, and [Family Divisions] Probate Divisions, and
the Family Court, of the Superior Court, excluding jury
trials and trials of felony cases.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 17--ADMINISTRATION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS
* * * * * * *
Subchapter III--Duties and responsibilities
* * * * * * *
SEC. 11-1748. AUTHORITY OF COURTS TO ACCEPT CERTAIN TYPES OF PAYMENTS
(a) Definitions.--In this section, the term `electronic
funds transfer'--
(1) means a transfer of funds, other than a
transaction by check, draft, or similar paper
instrument, that is initiated through an electronic
terminal, telephone, or computer or magnetic tape for
the purpose of ordering, instructing, or authorizing a
financial institution to debit or credit an account;
and
(2) includes point of sale transfers, automated
teller machine transfers, direct deposit or withdrawal
of funds, transfers initiated by telephone, and
transfers resulting from debit card transactions.
(b) Authority To Accept Credit Card Payments and Electronic
Funds Transfers.--
(1) In general.--The District of Columbia courts may
accept payment of fines, fees, escrow payments,
restitution, bonds, and other payments to the courts by
credit card or electronic funds transfer.
(2) Use of vendors and third party providers.--The
Executive officer--
(A) may contract with a bank or credit card
vendor, or other third party provider, for
purposes of accepting payments by credit card
or electronic funds transfer; and
(B) shall make every effort to find the
lowest cost vendor for purposes of accepting
such payments.
(3) Responsibility for paying fees.-- Under any
contract entered into under paragraph (2), the person
making the payment shall be responsible for covering
any fee or charge associated or imposed with respect to
the method of payment.
(4) Completion of payment.--If a person elects to
make a payment to the District of Columbia Courts by a
method authorized under paragraph (1), the payment
shall not be deemed to be made until the courts receive
the funds.
(c) Authority To Accept Checks.--
(1) In general.--The District of Columbia courts may
accept payment of fines, fees, escrow payments,
restitution, bonds, and other payments to the courts by
check.
(2) Use of check guarantee vendor.--The Executive
Officer--
(A) may contract with a check guarantee
vendor for purposes of accepting payments by
check; and
(B) shall make every effort to find the
lowest cost vendor for purposes of accepting
such payments.
(3) Responsibility for paying fees.--Under any
contract entered into under paragraph (2), the person
making the payment by check shall be responsible for
covering any fee or charge associated with or imposed
with respect to the method of payment.
(d) Liability for Non-Payment.--If a check or other method
of payment, including payment by credit card, debit card, or
charge card, so received is not duly paid, or is paid and
subsequently charged back to the District of Columbia courts,
the person by whom such check or other method of payment has
been tendered shall remain liable for the payment, to the same
extent as if such check or other method of payment had not been
tendered.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 26--REPRESENTATION OF INDIGENTS IN CRIMINAL CASES
* * * * * * *
SEC. 11-2604. PAYMENT FOR REPRESENTATION.
(a) * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
(c) Claims for compensation and reimbursement in excess of
any maximum amount provided in subsection (b) of this section
may be approved for extended or complex representation whenever
such payment is necessary to provide fair compensation. Any
such request for payment shall be submitted by the attorney for
approval by the chief judge of the Superior Court upon
recommendation of the presiding judge in the case or, in cases
before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, approval by
the chief judge of the Court of Appeals upon recommendation of
the presiding judge in the case. [A decision shall be made by
the appropriate chief judge in the case of every claim filed
under this subsection.] Each chief judge may delegate such
approval authority to an active or senior judge in the court in
which the chief judge sits.
* * * * * * *
TITLE 16--PARTICULAR ACTIONS, PROCEEDINGS AND MATTERS
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 23--FAMILY DIVISION [FAMILY COURT] PROCEEDINGS
* * * * * * *
Subchapter I--Proceedings Regarding Delinquency, Neglect, or Need of
Supervision
* * * * * * *
SEC. 16-2326.01. COMPENSATION OF ATTORNEYS IN NEGLECT AND TERMINATION
OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDINGS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(f)(1)] (f) Claims for compensation and reimbursement in
excess of the maximum amount provided in subsection (b) may be
approved for extended or complex representation when the
payment is necessary to provide fair compensation. The request
for payment shall be submitted by the attorney for approval by
the chief judge of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia upon recommendation of the presiding judge in the case
or, in cases before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals,
approval by the chief judge of the District of Columbia Court
of Appeals upon recommendation of the presiding judge in the
case. Each chief judge may delegate such approval authority to
an active or senior judge in the court in which the chief judge
sits.
[(2) A decision shall be made by the appropriate chief
judge in the case of every claim filed under this subsection.]