U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

59–010 

" ! SENATE 

114TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2016

114–359 

Calendar No. 645 

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 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2016.—Ordered to be printed 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SENE:\SEALS\Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

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 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
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 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
2 

1 U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 8, 17. 

2 Id. 

3 H. Doc. No. 95–139, 95 Cong. 1 sess. 

4D.C. Code § 11–1530. 

5 U.S.C. app. § 105(b). 

6District 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. 7D.C. Code § 11–1530 (1978). 

8Pub. L. No. 95–521, 92 Stat. 1824 (1978). 

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

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

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

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 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
3 

9D.C. Code § 11–1530 (1973). 

10The 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. 11 Id. 12 Id. 13 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Pub. L. No. 113–235, 124 

Stat. 2353 (2014). 14Pay.gov, DCD Criminal Debt Form, https://www.pay.gov/public/form/start/75717538. 

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

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

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

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 Federallyfunded, and therefore must obligate and extend their appropriations ‘‘in the same manner as funds appropriated for salaries and 

expenses of other federal agencies.’’ 13

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

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 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
4 

15Pub. L. No. 75–441, 52 Stat. 103 (1938). 16See 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, § 2(a) (1994) (from $2,000 

to $5,000). 17Pub. L. No. 103–303, 108 Stat. 1564, 2(a) (1994) (from $2,000 to $5,000). 18 CPI Inflation Calculator, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, available 

at http://www.bls.gov/data/inflationlcalculator.htm. 19 ‘‘The chief judge may delegate such approval authority to an active or senior judge.’’ 18 

U.S.C. 3006A (d)(3). 

for disputes, small in amount but important to the parties.15

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. 

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. 

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

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. 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
5 

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. 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
6 

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. 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
7 

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 ø$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 øthe following reports of the judge’s personal 

financial interests¿ a report containing the following information: 

(1) øA 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.¿ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
8 

(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 ø$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 ø$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 øin 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 

ø$300¿ $250 or more received by the judge and the judge’s 

spouse during such period. 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
9 

(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. 

ø(b) 

ø(1) * * * 

ø(2) * * * 

ø(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 SupeVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:20 Sep 30, 2016 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR359.XXX SR359

smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
10 

rior Court and the right of review under subsection (k), may perform the following functions: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(A) In any case brought under § 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 øFamily 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 øFamily 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— 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
11 

(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 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
12 

the case. øA 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) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(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. 

ø(2) A decision shall be made by the appropriate chief judge in 

the case of every claim filed under this subsection.¿ 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN