United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Administrative

Oversight and the Courts

Committee on the Judiciary

U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 2:00 p.m.

on September 22, 1997

FEDERAL JUDICIARY

Bankruptcy Judgeship

Requests, 1993-1997

Statement of Richard M. Stana

Acting Associate Director

Administration of Justice Issues

General Government Division

GAO/T-GGD-97-183

Summary 

Federal Judiciary: Bankruptcy Judgeship

Requests, 1993-1997

The Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary’s

principal policymaking body, is statutorily required to periodically submit

to Congress recommendations for new bankruptcy judgeships. Congress

last approved new bankruptcy judgeships in 1992. The Judicial Conference

has subsequently sent Congress recommendations for additional

bankruptcy judgeships in 1993, 1995, and 1997. Congress considered, but

did not approve, the 1993 and 1995 requests, and is currently considering

the 1997 request. In 1991, the Judicial Conference established a process,

with policies and weighted workload standards, for assessing the need for

additional bankruptcy judges. At the request of the Subcommittee, GAO

reviewed the 1993, 1995, and 1997 assessment cycles. GAO found that the

Conference’s Bankruptcy Committee and the Judicial Conference

generally followed the Conference’s process and policies. The Committee

and Conference placed heaviest emphasis on whether the districts

requesting additional judgeships had a caseload that exceeded 1,500

weighted filings per authorized judgeship. Neither the Committee nor the

Conference approved any requests for additional judgeships from districts

whose weighted case filings did not meet this standard.

The Bankruptcy Committee also asked that districts requesting judgeships

provide information on several factors, other than weighted filings, that

may affect their need for additional judges, such as case management

practices and the district’s demographics and economic conditions. Most

of these districts provided information on at least four of these factors.

According to officials at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

(AOUSC), the use of such information is inherently judgmental. The

judiciary keeps no documentation on how the Bankruptcy Committee or

Judicial Conference used this nonstatistical information in assessing

bankruptcy districts’ judgeship requests.

The Subcommittee also asked GAO to obtain information for calendar years

1995 and 1996 on bankruptcy judges’ noncase-related travel—travel not

related to adjudicating specific cases. Time devoted to noncase-related

travel could affect the time judges have to devote to individual cases. In

assessing bankruptcy judges’ workload, the Judicial Conference assumes

that a bankruptcy judge will spend, on average, about 30 percent of his or

her time—about 600 hours, or 75 work days per year—on noncase-related

matters, such as travel, training, administrative affairs, and general case

management activities that cannot be attributed to a specific case. GAO

received information on noncase-related travel from 80 of the 84

authorized judges in the 15 districts that would receive or share one of the

judgeships requested in 1997. These 80 judges reported a total of 416

Page 1 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Summary 

Federal Judiciary: Bankruptcy Judgeship

Requests, 1993-1997

noncase-related trips in 1995 and 403 in 1996, and GAO calculated that they

each traveled an average of 12.5 work days in each of these years. About

98 percent of these trips were made to destinations within the United

States. Together, circuit or district meetings and activities; Judicial

Conference meetings and activities; and workshops, seminars, and other

activities sponsored by the AOUSC or the Federal Judicial Center (FJC),

accounted for about 66 percent of all trips and 74 percent of all travel

workdays in 1995. Comparable figures for 1996 were about 67 percent and

about 73 percent, respectively.

Page 2 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Statement 

Federal Judiciary: Bankruptcy Judgeship

Requests, 1993-1997

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the results of our review of the

federal judiciary’s assessment of its bankruptcy judgeship needs in the

1993, 1995, and 1997 assessment cycles. Limiting judgeship requests to the

number necessary is important because each bankruptcy judgeship costs

about $721,000 to establish and about $575,000 per year to maintain. At the

same time, it is important that there be sufficient bankruptcy judgeships to

enable the bankruptcy courts to adjudicate bankruptcy cases fairly and

efficiently.

Specifically, my testimony focuses on three principal issues: (1) the

process, policies, and workload standards that the Judicial Conference of

the United States1

 used to assess the bankruptcy districts’ requests for

additional bankruptcy judgeships; (2) how the Judiciary applied its

policies and workload standards across the districts that requested

bankruptcy judgeships; and (3) the extent of noncase-related travel in 1995

and 1996 by bankruptcy judges in the 14 districts for which the Judicial

Conference of the United States has requested bankruptcy judgeships in

1997.

In brief, we found that the Bankruptcy Committee and the Judicial

Conference generally followed the Judicial Conference’s process and

policies and consistently applied the Conference’s statistical workload

standards in assessing individual district’s requests for additional

judgeships in 1993, 1995, and 1997. For example, the Bankruptcy

Committee and Judicial Conference placed heaviest emphasis on whether

the districts requesting additional judgeships had a caseload that exceeded

1,500 weighted filings per existing authorized judgeship. Neither the

Committee nor the Conference approved any request for additional

judgeships from districts that did not meet this minimum standard.

According to officials at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

(AOUSC), neither the Committee nor the Judicial Conference keeps written

documentation on how other available data, such as case management

practices or a district’s geography (travel distances between places of

holding court), were used in assessing districts’ judgeship requests. AOUSC

officials also stated that the use of data other than weighted case filings in

assessing judgeship needs is inherently judgmental.

1

The Judicial Conference is the federal judiciary’s principal policymaking body. It consists of 26 judges

plus the Chief Justice of the United States, who presides over the conference.

Page 3 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Statement 

Federal Judiciary: Bankruptcy Judgeship

Requests, 1993-1997

The amount of time judges use for noncase-related travel—travel that is

not related to adjudicating specific cases—could potentially affect the

amount of time judges have to devote to individual cases. In assessing a

bankruptcy judge’s workload, the Judicial Conference assumes that a

bankruptcy judge will spend, on average, about 30 percent of his or her

time—about 600 hours, or 75 work days per year—on noncase-related

matters, such as travel, training, administrative affairs, and general case

management activities that cannot be attributed to a specific case. We

received information on noncase-related travel from 80 of the 84

authorized judges in the 15 districts that would receive or share 1 of the

judgeships requested in 1997.2

 These 80 judges reported a total of 416

noncase-related trips in 1995 and 403 in 1996. On the basis of the

information reported, we calculated that overall these judges each used an

average of 12.5 work days for noncase-related travel in each of these years.

About 98 percent of these trips were made to destinations within the

United States. Together, circuit or district meetings and activities; Judicial

Conference meetings and activities; and workshops, seminars, and other

activities sponsored by AOUSC or the Federal Judicial Center (FJC),

accounted for about 66 percent of all noncase-related trips and about

74 percent of all noncase-related travel workdays in 1995. Comparable

figures for 1996 were about 67 percent and about 73 percent, respectively.

In correspondence to the Subcommittee Chairman on August 8, 1997, we

provided more details about these trips for each district.3

Through AOUSC, we also surveyed the 13 authorized judges in the 4 districts

with weighted filings of 1,500 or more during the 1997 assessment cycle

that did not request judgeships. The 12 judges in these four districts (one

position was vacant) reported a total of 177 noncase-related trips—75 in

calendar year 1995 and 102 in calendar year 1996.4

 Based on these

reported data, we calculated that the 12 judges spent a total of 178

workdays in 1995 and 258 workdays in 1996 on noncase-related travel.

This is a per judge average of 14.8 workdays in 1995 and 21.5 workdays in

1996. Overall, about 23 percent of all trips in these two years were

sponsored and paid for by organizations other than the federal judiciary.

2

One additional judge responded, but did not provide information on the dates of travel or paying

organizations. Thus, our analysis excluded data from this judge.

3

Federal Judiciary: Information on the Noncase-Related Travel of Bankruptcy Judges in 14 Bankruptcy

Districts (GAO/GGD-97-166R, Aug. 8, 1997).

4

Although the Eastern District of Texas has two authorized bankruptcy judgeships, one of the

positions is vacant. Currently, the district is served by one permanent judge and one recalled judge.

For comparability, we did not include the travel of the recalled judge in our analysis because we did

not request or use data for recalled judges in the 15 districts for which we had previously reported on

bankruptcy judges’ noncase-related travel.

Page 4 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Statement 

Federal Judiciary: Bankruptcy Judgeship

Requests, 1993-1997

To develop the information in this statement, we obtained documentation

from AOUSC on (1) the process, policies, and workload standards the

Judicial Conference has established for assessing the need for bankruptcy

judgeships; (2) how the process, policies, and workload standards were

used in the 1993, 1995, and 1997 assessment cycles to determine the

number of additional bankruptcy judgeships needed and requested; and

(3) the temporary assistance requested by and provided to the districts

that sought additional judgeships in 1993, 1995, and/or 1997. Through

AOUSC, we surveyed the 84 judges in the 15 districts that would receive or

share one of the bankruptcy judgeships the Judicial Conference requested

in 1997 to obtain information on the judges’ noncase-related travel in

calendar years 1995 and 1996. Through AOUSC, we also surveyed the 13

judges in the 4 districts with weighted filings of 1,500 or more in the 1997

assessment cycle that did not request additional judgeships to obtain data

on their noncase-related travel in calendar years 1995 and 1996. We did our

work between March and August 1997 in Washington, D.C., and Dallas, TX,

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Details of our scope and methodology are presented in appendix I.

The Federal

Judiciary’s Process for

Assessing Bankruptcy

Judgeship Needs

Bankruptcy cases in the United States are filed in 1 of the 90 federal

bankruptcy courts. The Judicial Conference is statutorily required to

periodically submit to Congress recommendations for new federal

bankruptcy judgeships. Congress last authorized new bankruptcy

judgeships in 1992. Subsequently, the Conference has sent

recommendations for additional bankruptcy judgeships to Congress in

1993, 1995, and 1997. Congress considered, but not approve, any new

judgeships from the 1993 and 1995 requests and is currently considering

the 1997 request. To assist the Conference in advising Congress on the

need for additional judgeships, the Conference’s Committee on

Administration of the Bankruptcy System (Bankruptcy Committee) is to

conduct periodic national judgeship surveys to evaluate requests for

additional bankruptcy judgeships. In 1993, 1995, and 1997, the Bankruptcy

Committee conducted its surveys and analyses through its Subcommittee

on Judgeships.

In considering each district’s bankruptcy judgeship request, the

Bankruptcy Committee may recommend to the Judicial Conference one of

seven options:

• one or more permanent judgeships,

• a temporary judgeship,

Page 5 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Statement 

Federal Judiciary: Bankruptcy Judgeship

Requests, 1993-1997

• a combination of permanent and temporary judgeships,

• the conversion of a temporary judgeship to a permanent judgeship,

• the extension of the term of an existing temporary judgeship,

• a judgeship to be shared by two or more districts; or,

• no changes to the district’s existing number and type of authorized

judgeships.

A permanent judgeship is a position that is statutorily added to the

bankruptcy district’s current authorized total and remains authorized until

statutorily rescinded.5

 A temporary judgeship is a position that is

statutorily created and authorized for 5 years after a judge is appointed to

fill the temporary judgeship. It is important to note that it is the judgeship

that is temporary, not the judge appointed to fill the position. The judge

appointed to a temporary judgeship serves the same full 14-year term as a

colleague appointed to fill a permanent position. When a temporary

judgeship’s 5-year authorization expires, the next vacancy to occur in the

district cannot be filled. However, between the time that the temporary

judgeship expires and a vacancy occurs, it is possible for the district to

have more judges than authorized judgeships. Converting a district’s

existing temporary judgeship to a permanent judgeship reclassifies an

existing judgeship, rather than adding a judgeship to a district’s existing

authorized total.

Basic Steps in the Formal

Assessment Process

In 1991, the Judicial Conference established a process, with policies and

weighted workload standards, for reviewing bankruptcy judgeships. The

formal process has 8 basic steps (see fig. 1) that, when fully implemented,

would take about 9 months to 1 year to complete. As I will discuss later in

my testimony, this process was generally followed in developing the

Judicial Conference’s 1993, 1995, and 1997 bankruptcy judgeship requests.

The eight basic steps in this formal process are as follows:

5

Nationally, there are 326 authorized bankruptcy judgeships. Each of the 90 bankruptcy districts is

statutorily authorized a specific number of judgeships, which currently ranges from 1 to 21.

Page 6 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Statement 

Federal Judiciary: Bankruptcy Judgeship

Requests, 1993-1997

Figure 1: the Judicial Conference’s Formal Process for Assessing Bankruptcy Judgeship Needs

Judicial Conference

Bankruptcy Committee

requests that the chief judge of each court

assess the need for additional bankruptcy judgeships.

Appellate

Courts

District

Courts

Bankruptcy

Courts

Chief

Judges

Chief

Judges

Chief

Judges

Bankruptcy

courts provide

views

Step 1

Step 2

Each court provides views on the need for

additional judges to their respective

judicial councils.

Circuit Judicial Council 

forwards its recommendations.

Bankruptcy Judges Division AOUSC

(serves as staff to the Bankruptcy Committee)

forwards its recommendations.

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

Step 6

Bankruptcy Committee,

Subcommittee on Judgeships

organizes a team to conduct surveys and collect

information from written mail and on-site surveys.

Survey team prepares a written report regarding

the bankruptcy court's judgeship request and

sends it back to the subcommittee.

Subcommittee on Judgeships

prepares a draft recommendation for the Bankruptcy

Committee on each district's judgeship request.

Subcommittee on Judgeships

draft recommendations and survey reports are

forwarded to the requesting courts for additional

comments, then their comments are mailed back.

Subcommittee on Judgeships

reviews the comments, prepares its final

recommendations, and forwards these

recommendations to the Bankruptcy Committee.

Step 8

Bankruptcy Committee Step 7 votes on each request and

makes recommendations.

Makes final recommendation.

Congress receives the

Judicial Conference's

recommendations.

Page 7 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Statement 

Federal Judiciary: Bankruptcy Judgeship

Requests, 1993-1997

1. The Bankruptcy Committee requests that the chief judge of each

appellate, district, and bankruptcy court assess the need for additional

bankruptcy judgeships within their respective jurisdictions based on the

Judicial Conference’s policies. At the same time, the Committee provides

each bankruptcy court (or district) information on its weighted filings per

current authorized judgeship.

2. The bankruptcy and district courts provide their views on the need for

additional judges to their respective circuit judicial councils.6

 The

bankruptcy court also sends its views to the district court.7

3. After reviewing the material provided by the bankruptcy and district

courts, the circuit judicial council forwards its recommendations, which

may differ from those of the bankruptcy and district courts in the circuit,

to the Bankruptcy Judges Division of AOUSC, which serves as staff to the

Bankruptcy Committee.

4. Under the direction of the Bankruptcy Committee’s Subcommittee on

Judgeships, written mail surveys are sent to those districts for which

judgeships have been requested. The Subcommittee on Judgeships

conducts an on-site survey whenever a district initially requests additional

judgeships. When a district renews a request previously approved by the

Judicial Conference, but which Congress has not approved, the

Bankruptcy Committee determines whether to conduct another survey.

The on-site survey team is to generally consist of a bankruptcy judge

member of the Bankruptcy Committee and staff of AOUSC’s Bankruptcy

Judges Division. The team interviews a variety of court officials and local

attorneys, and reviews court files, dockets, and reports. The survey team

then prepares a written report with a recommendation to the

Subcommittee on Judgeships regarding the bankruptcy court’s judgeship

request.

5. For each bankruptcy district requesting judgeships, the Subcommittee

on Judgeships reviews the district’s judgeship request, the district’s

completed mail survey, and the on-site survey report (if done), then

6

Each of the 12 geographic circuits has a circuit council that consists of an equal number of district

and court of appeals judges from the circuit. Among other duties, the council is statutorily charged

with making all necessary and appropriate orders for the effective and expeditious administration of

justice within the circuit.

7

Bankruptcy courts are under the general supervision of the district court, which appoints the chief

bankruptcy judge in each district. Both district courts and bankruptcy courts are organized into 12

geographic circuits, headed by a court of appeals. Each circuit includes a number of district and

bankruptcy courts.

Page 8 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Statement 

Federal Judiciary: Bankruptcy Judgeship

Requests, 1993-1997

prepares a recommendation for the Bankruptcy Committee on the

district’s judgeship request.

6. The Subcommittee sends its recommendations, along with the

applicable on-site survey reports (where done), to the circuit councils,

district courts, and bankruptcy courts in those circuits and bankruptcy

districts for which bankruptcy judges were requested. The circuit councils,

district courts, and bankruptcy courts may provide any comments they

have on the Subcommittee’s recommendations, the survey report, and

provide any other additional information they believe is relevant to the

judgeship requests in their circuit or bankruptcy district. The

Subcommittee on Judgeships reviews these comments, makes its final

recommendation for each district, and sends its recommendations and

accompanying documentation to the Bankruptcy Committee.

7. The Bankruptcy Committee reviews the mail survey, on-site survey

report (if done), any other accompanying documents, and the

Subcommittee on Judgeships’ recommendations for each district, votes on

each request, and forwards its recommendations to the Judicial

Conference.

8. The Judicial Conference considers the Bankruptcy Committee’s

recommendations, approves or alters the Committee’s recommendations,

and forwards the Conference’s final recommendations to Congress.

In reviewing judgeship requests, the Bankruptcy Committee is to consider

a number of factors adopted by the Judicial Conference in 1991. The first

factor is weighted filings. Based on the results of a study of the time

bankruptcy judges devoted to individual categories of bankruptcy cases,8

each case filed is assigned to 1 of 17 categories. Each category is

determined on the basis of the bankruptcy chapter under which the case is

filed, and within each chapter, the dollar value of the debtor’s assets or

8

The bankruptcy case weights were developed by the Federal Judicial Center based on a 1988-1989

time study in which 272 bankruptcy judges recorded the time they spent on specific cases. The case

weights resulting from this study were approved by the Judicial Conference in March 1991. In

evaluating the weighted caseload of the Southern District of New York, the Committee in 1997 used a

new method of measuring the workload required for very large (“mega”) chapter 11 cases that had

been developed by the Federal Judicial Center and approved by the Bankruptcy Committee. The

Southern District had an unusually large number of such “mega” cases, which are defined as “those

involving extremely large assets, unusual public interest, a high level of creditor involvement, complex

debt, a significant amount of related litigation, or a combination of such factors.”

Page 9 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Statement 

Federal Judiciary: Bankruptcy Judgeship

Requests, 1993-1997

liabilities.9 A case weight is assigned to each of the 17 categories,

representing the average amount of judicial time the case would be

expected to require. Generally, to be eligible for an additional judgeship,

the Judicial Conference expects a bankruptcy district to have a minimum

annual average of 1,500 weighted filings for each current authorized

judgeship. To be eligible for a permanent judgeship, the Judicial

Conference’s standard is that a district’s weighted filings per judgeship

must be 1,500 or higher after adding any judgeships to the district’s

existing judgeship total. For example, a district with 5 judges could qualify

for an additional permanent judgeship if its weighted filings per judgeship

would be at least 1,500 with 6 judgeships (its existing 5 plus the requested

position). If the weighted filings per judgeship would drop below 1,500

with the additional judgeship, the district could potentially qualify for a

temporary, but not permanent, judgeship.

The Judicial Conference’s policy recognizes that bankruptcy judges’

workloads may be affected by factors not captured in the most recent

report of weighted filings and states that the Bankruptcy Committee is to

consider a number of factors in addition to weighted filings. These factors

include (1) the nature and mix of the court’s caseload; (2) historical

caseload data and filing trends (generally, the most recent 5-year period);

(3) geographic, economic, and demographic factors in the district;10 (4) the

effectiveness of the requesting court’s case management efforts;11 (5) the

availability of alternative solutions and resources for handling the court’s

workload, such as assistance from judges outside the district; (6) the

impact that approval of requested additional resources would have on the

court’s per judgeship caseload; and (7) any other pertinent factors. The

Bankruptcy Committee’s written description of the assessment process

also recognized that (1) bankruptcy case filings may fluctuate because

they are dependent upon national and local economic conditions, and

(2) temporary fluctuations can often be addressed by short-term

9

Debtors may file for bankruptcy under one of several bankruptcy chapters, as defined in the U.S.

Code, and report their assets and debts on their filing forms. The case weights are based on the value

of the debtor’s stated assets in four of the five bankruptcy categories and on the debtor’s stated

liabilities in the remaining category. Liabilities were used for this one category based on the

assumption that future earnings were the principal asset of debtors who file under this category.

10In describing the use of statistical factors other than weighted filings, the Conference has noted that

higher than average population growth may be an indicator of increased future bankruptcies due to

more possible debtors, and a more dynamic economy.

11According to the Conference’s explanation of its policy, case management issues may not be a major

issue for courts that clearly meet the statistical workload standard of 1,500 case-related hours per

judgeship. However, for courts with lower workloads or courts that use pending case loads as

justification for their request, case management issues would be explored as much as possible.

Page 10 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Statement 

Federal Judiciary: Bankruptcy Judgeship

Requests, 1993-1997

resources, such as temporary assistance from judges outside the district

and the use of temporary law clerks.

At its September 1996 meeting, the Judicial Conference approved a change

in the schedule for completing the biennial surveys for evaluating

judgeship needs for district courts, courts of appeals, and bankruptcy

courts. Beginning in 1998, the surveys are generally to be done in

even-numbered years so that the Conference’s recommendations for

additional judgeships can be delivered to Congress in odd-numbered

years. This change is intended to permit the judiciary to work with

Congress on a judgeship bill over an entire 2-year congressional term.

The Judicial

Conference Generally

Followed Its Process,

Policies, and

Workload Standards

in 1993, 1995, and

1997

In 1993, 1995, and 1997, the Bankruptcy Committee generally followed the

Judicial Conference’s established process, policies, and workload

standards in assessing bankruptcy judgeship needs. The Bankruptcy

Committee recommended to the Judicial Conference fewer judgeships

than districts requested or the circuit councils recommended. Overall, the

Committee also recommended fewer permanent and more temporary

judgeships than were requested. The Conference adopted the Bankruptcy

Committee’s recommendations in each year, 1993, 1995, and 1997. (See

tables II.1 - II.3 in app. II for additional details.)

1993 Assessment Process In 1993, 16 districts requested 22 additional judgeships (21 permanent and

1 temporary). The Bankruptcy Committee’s Subcommittee on Judgeships

conducted both a written mail survey and an on-site survey of each of the

16 bankruptcy districts that requested one or more additional judges. The

Bankruptcy Committee recommended 19 additional judgeships (13

permanent and 6 temporary) for 15 judicial districts, and the Judicial

Conference approved this recommendation in September 1993. The

Bankruptcy Committee declined requests for 3 permanent judgeships and

converted requests for 5 permanent judgeships to temporary judgeships.

At its January and June 1994 meetings, the Bankruptcy Committee

concluded that these 19 positions were still needed based on weighted

filings alone. Congress did not approve any judgeships from the Judicial

Conference’s 1993 request.

1995 Assessment Process At its January 1995 meeting, the Committee, using more recent statistical

data, determined that some of the positions the Committee had approved

in 1993 and 1994 may no longer have been needed. At this meeting, the

Page 11 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Statement 

Federal Judiciary: Bankruptcy Judgeship

Requests, 1993-1997

Committee also adopted new guidelines for reassessing the additional

judgeship positions that the Conference had approved in 1993 and 1994.

Under the new guidelines, districts whose previously approved requests

were still pending before Congress would be asked to reassess their need

for these additional judgeship positions and submit a statement to the

Committee on whether or not the positions were still needed. The

Committee considered a position still needed, without a new survey, if the

district’s weighted filings per authorized judgeship were 1,500 or more.

The Committee retained the option to resurvey any district renewing its

request for additional judgeships whose weighted filings were below 1,500

per authorized judgeship.

The Bankruptcy Committee’s Subcommittee on Judgeships conducted

on-site visits to each district for which an additional judgeship had been

approved in 1993, and whose case filings during 1994 fell below 1,500

weighted filings per authorized judgeship. On the basis of these surveys,

the circuit judicial councils of the Fifth and Ninth Circuits withdrew their

requests for additional judgeships in the Southern District of Mississippi

and the District of Arizona, respectively. In five other districts, the Circuit

Councils reaffirmed their bankruptcy districts’ requests for a total of six

judgeships. However, the Bankruptcy Committee declined the requests for

these six judgeships. Overall, the Bankruptcy Committee recommended

that the Judicial Conference reduce the number of requested positions

from 19 judgeships in 15 districts to 11 judgeships (including 6 temporary)

in 8 districts. The Conference approved the Bankruptcy Committee’s

recommendation at its September 1995 meeting and transmitted it to

Congress. Congress did not approve any judgeships from the Judicial

Conference’s 1995 request.

1997 Assessment Process At its September 1996 meeting, the Judicial Conference approved a new

schedule for judgeship surveys. As a result of this change and because

Congress had not approved the Conference’s 1995 bankruptcy judgeship

request, the Bankruptcy Committee began an expedited survey process in

November 1996. In January 1997, the Bankruptcy Committee found that

each of the 11 positions approved in 1995 continued to be needed based on

the weighted case filings as of September 30, 1996. The Committee also

considered requests for 9 additional positions (for a total of 20).12 In each

district, the weighted filings per judgeship exceeded the 1,500 standard.

The Committee recommended to the Judicial Conference 18 additional

12This number included five judgeships approved by the Conference in 1993 but not in 1995; and four

judgeships that had not been requested in either 1993 or 1995.

Page 12 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Statement 

Federal Judiciary: Bankruptcy Judgeship

Requests, 1993-1997

judgeships (including 11 temporary). The Judicial Conference adopted the

Committee’s recommendations and sent the Conference’s judgeship

request to Congress. The Conference’s 1997 request is now pending before

Congress. Table 1 provides an overview of the number of judgeships

requested and approved at each major step in the process in 1993, 1995,

and 1997.

Table 1: Results of the Federal Judiciary’s 1993, 1995, and 1997 Bankruptcy Judgeship Needs Assessments

1993 judgeship requests 1995 judgeship requests 1997 judgeship requests

Number

of courts

Number of

judgeships

Number

of courts

Number of

judgeships

Number

of courts

Number of

judgeships

Initial bankruptcy

court request 16 21P & 1T 14 13P & 5T 15 17P & 3Ta

Approved by the

district court 16 21P & 1T b b b b

Approved by the

Circuit Judicial Council 16 20P & 2T 14 11P & 7T 15 17P & 4T

Supported by the

AOUSC survey 15 14P & 5T b b b b

Approved by the

Bankruptcy Committee 15 13P & 6T 8 5P & 6T 14 7P & 11Tc

Approved by the 

Judicial Conference 15 13P & 6T 8 5P & 6T 14 7P & 11Tc

Legend: P = permanent judgeships; T = temporary judgeships.

aThe Southern District of Mississippi requested that a survey be performed to determine if any

additional judgeships were warranted. Thus, while no specific request was made for additional

judges, a temporary judgeship was recommended by the Circuit Council and later approved by

the Bankruptcy Committee and the Judicial Conference.

bThe last formal survey of all districts requesting additional bankruptcy judges was conducted in

1993. In 1995, there were relatively few surveys. Surveys were conducted only when the

requesting district made no request in 1993 or the requesting district’s weighted case filings were

below 1,500. In most bankruptcy districts, the district reviewed its weighted case filings data,

and, if the filings met the 1,500 threshold, renewed its request through its Circuit Judicial Council.

In 1997, a survey was conducted for only one district. Thus, there is little documentation from the

district courts and few surveys for 1995 and 1997. As a result, we did not attempt to include data

for the district courts or AOUSC surveys in the table because the data could be misleading.

cIncludes the recommended extension of one temporary judgeship. This recommendation would

not add a judgeship position, but it would extend the duration of an existing temporary judgeship

position.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Page 13 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Statement 

Federal Judiciary: Bankruptcy Judgeship

Requests, 1993-1997

Weighted Filings Standard

Consistently Applied

Across Districts

In our analysis, we found that in the 1993 and 1997 assessment cycles, all

of the districts requesting additional bankruptcy judgeships—16 in 1993

and 15 in 1997—had weighted case filings over 1,500 per authorized

judgeship prior to the addition of any judgeships. However, in the 1995

assessment cycle, 8 of the 14 requesting districts had weighted case filings

per judgeship over 1,500; the remaining 6 districts had weighted case

filings below 1,500. (See table II.1 in app. II.)

Our analysis also showed that the Judicial Conference approved additional

permanent bankruptcy judgeships only when the weighted case filings

would be 1,500 or more per judgeship after adding the requested

judgeship(s) to the district’s current authorized number of judgeships. If

the weighted case filings would drop below 1,500 per judgeship after

adding the requested judge(s), the Bankruptcy Committee and the

Conference approved a temporary judgeship or no increase in judgeships.

In two districts, the Committee approved both one permanent and one

temporary judgeship—the Southern District of New York in 1993, and the

District of Maryland in 1997. In these two districts, the weighted workload

was considered sufficiently high after adding one permanent judgeship to

merit another judgeship, but not sufficiently high to merit a second

permanent judgeship.

Some Districts That Met

the Minimum Weighted

Filings Standard Did Not

Request Additional

Judgeships

Not all districts whose weighted case filings met the minimum threshold of

1,500 weighted filings per authorized judgeship requested additional

judgeships in 1993, 1995, or 1997. We found that during the 1993

assessment cycle, 10 districts with weighted case filings above 1,500 per

authorized judgeship did not request additional judges. In 1995, four such

districts did not request additional judgeships; and, in 1997, five such

districts did not. (See tables II.5-II.7 in app. II.) However, one of the five

districts in 1997 was the Northern District of Mississippi, which is to share

the additional position requested for the Southern District of Mississippi.

Conversely, in 1995, six districts whose weighted filings were below 1,500

per authorized judgeship requested additional judgeships. None of these

six districts’ requests were approved by the Bankruptcy Committee. (See

table II.3 in app. II.)

We spoke to officials in the four districts that had more than 1,500

weighted case filings per authorized judgeship in 1997, but had not asked

for additional judgeships.13 The officials in these four districts told us that

13We did not speak to officials in the Northern District of Mississippi since that district is to share the

additional judgeship the Conference has requested for the Southern District of Mississippi.

Page 14 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Statement 

Federal Judiciary: Bankruptcy Judgeship

Requests, 1993-1997

they had not requested any additional judgeships because (1) one district

was not aware that its weighted case filings were at or above 1,500 per

authorized judgeship; (2) one district said it could handle the workload if

the district’s temporary judgeship, scheduled to expire in October 1998,

was converted to a permanent judgeship;14 and (3) the remaining two

districts currently share a judgeship and could not agree on how an

additional judgeship would be allocated between the two districts.

Little Documentation

Exists on the Effect of

Other Available Data on

the Judicial Conference’s

Recommendations

The Judicial Conference’s policy for assessing a bankruptcy district’s need

for additional judgeships states that the Bankruptcy Committee is to

review a number of workload factors in addition to weighted filings. These

factors include the nature and mix of the bankruptcy district’s workload;

historical caseload data and filing trends; geographic, economic, and

demographic factors in the district; the effectiveness of case management

efforts; the availability of alternative solutions and resources for handling

the district’s workload; the impact that approval of requested additional

resources would have on the district’s per judgeship caseload; and any

other pertinent factors. The Bankruptcy Committee asked that districts

requesting additional judgeships address these factors “with as much

specificity as possible.” A district could also provide any additional

information it thought relevant to its request.

Most of the districts surveyed in 1993, 1995, and 1997 provided information

on at least four of these factors. AOUSC officials said they provided us with

all the written information on these factors that was available to the

Bankruptcy Committee for its deliberations. AOUSC officials said that the

use of this information in assessing judgeship requests is inherently

judgmental and that neither AOUSC nor the Committee keeps minutes of the

Committee’s discussions regarding individual districts. Consequently, it

was not possible to determine from the documentation we received, how

this information was or was not used in assessing districts’ bankruptcy

judgeship requests. Nevertheless, none of the judgeship requests approved

by the Judicial Conference were in districts that did not meet the 1,500

weighted filings standard.

14Converting an existing temporary judgeship to a permanent judgeship reclassifies an existing

judgeship. It does not add a judgeship for the district.

Page 15 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Statement 

Federal Judiciary: Bankruptcy Judgeship

Requests, 1993-1997

Most Districts That

Requested Additional

Judges Have Requested

Assistance From Visiting

and Recalled Judges

The Judicial Conference’s policies encourage districts to use visiting and

recalled judges wherever possible as an alternative to requesting

additional judgeships. For each district that requested additional

bankruptcy judgeships in the 1993, 1995, and/or 1997 assessment cycles,

we requested information on whether the districts had requested,

received, and/or used assistance from visiting or recalled judges. The

circuit executives for all 12 circuits provided us documentation on each of

the bankruptcy districts that had requested and been assigned assistance

from judges outside their districts in each of those years.15 However, the

circuit executives did not have information on whether and to what extent

the districts actually used the assistance available from visiting and

recalled judges.

Our analysis of this information showed that 18 of the 19 districts that

requested additional bankruptcy judges during 1993 to1997 had requested

assistance from judges outside their districts during this period. (See table

II.4 in app. II.) Only the Middle District of Pennsylvania had not requested

either visiting or recalled judges at some time during the period from

January 1, 1993, to June 1997. Ten of the 18 districts that requested

assistance received intracircuit assignments (judges from within their

circuit) to provide assistance with their caseloads. None of the four

districts in California relied on intracircuit assignments. These districts are

in the Ninth Circuit, which uses its own “workload equalization program”

that transfers cases from districts in the circuit with above-average

caseloads to districts in the circuit that have below-average caseloads.

This program allows cases to be transferred rather than judges. According

to the circuit, transferring cases minimizes both the inconvenience to the

parties involved as well as judges’ travel time and expenses.

Six districts received intercircuit assignments (judges from outside their

circuits) to provide assistance with their caseloads. Only four of these six

districts received both intracircuit and intercircuit assignments of

bankruptcy judges. Eleven of the 18 districts that requested assistance had

been assigned recalled judges as a means to alleviate the heavy caseloads.16

15Our information for 1997 covers the period from January to June 1997.

16A recalled judge is a retired bankruptcy judge who is recalled for duty for a specific period of time,

usually 1 year. Some of the recalled judges were assigned to more than one district at the same time.

Page 16 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Statement 

Federal Judiciary: Bankruptcy Judgeship

Requests, 1993-1997

Bankruptcy Judges’

Noncase-Related

Travel in Calendar

Years 1995 and 1996

Varied by District

Bankruptcy judges’ travel can be categorized as case-related and

noncase-related. Case-related travel is travel to work on specific

bankruptcy cases whether within a judge’s district or in other districts.

Noncase-related travel is travel that is not related to adjudicating specific

bankruptcy cases. The amount of time devoted to noncase-related travel

could potentially affect the amount of time judges have to devote to work

on individual cases.

In assessing bankruptcy judges’ workloads, the Judicial Conference

assumes that each bankruptcy judge will spend, on average, about

30 percent of his or her time—about 600 hours, or 75 work days per

year—on matters that cannot be attributed to a specific case, such as

travel, training, court administration matters, and general case

management activities that cannot be attributed to a specific case. These

600 hours, or 75 work days, are in addition to the average of 1,500 hours or

187.5 workdays that each judge is assumed to spend annually on work

attributable to specific bankruptcy cases.

Through AOUSC, we requested information on the noncase-related travel of

the judges in the 14 districts for which the Judicial Conference requested

judgeships in 1997, plus the Northern District of Mississippi which is to

share the position requested for the Southern District of Mississippi. We

received information from 80 of the 84 judges in these districts judges on

noncase-related travel in calendar years 1995 and 1996. These judges

reported a total of 416 trips in 1995 and 403 trips in 1996. On the basis of

the data reported, we calculated that these judges had an average of 12.5

noncase-related travel work days each year.17 As shown in table 2, there

was a marked difference between the districts with the highest and lowest

average number of noncase-related trips per judge and between the

districts with the highest and lowest average number of workdays per

judge for noncase-related trips. The reasons for these differences were not

apparent from our data.

17We identified workdays by excluding weekend days and federal holidays in 1995 and 1996.

Page 17 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Statement 

Federal Judiciary: Bankruptcy Judgeship

Requests, 1993-1997

Table 2: Range in Number of Trips and

Workdays Per Judge for

Noncase-Related Travel in Calendar

Years 1995 and 1996 in the 15 Districts

for Which the Judiciary Requested

Bankruptcy Judgeships in 1997

District range 1995 1996

Average number of noncase-related trips per

judge

High 9.3 12.0

Low 0.5 1.3

Average number of workdays per judge for

noncase-related travel

High 22.3 28.5

Low 1.5 5.2

Source: GAO analysis of bankruptcy judges’ travel data.

Together, circuit or district meetings and activities; Judicial Conference

meetings and activities; and AOUSC- or FJC-sponsored workshops, seminars,

or other activities accounted for about 66 percent of all noncase-related

trips and about 74 percent of all noncase-related travel workdays reported

for 1995. Comparable figures for calendar year 1996 were about 67 percent

and 73 percent, respectively. About 98 percent of the 819 trips were for

destinations within the United States. Overall, about 34 percent of all trips

made in these two years were sponsored by organizations other than the

federal judiciary and were paid for by the judges themselves or the

sponsoring organizations.

Noncase-Related Travel in

the Four Districts With

Weighted Filings of 1,500

or More in 1997 That Did

Not Request Judgeships

You requested that we also obtain information on the noncase-related

travel of the 13 authorized judges in the four districts with weighted filings

of 1,500 or more in 1997 that did not request judgeships. The 12 judges in

these 4 districts (one position was vacant) reported a total of 177

noncase-related trips—75 in calendar year 1995 and 102 in calendar year

1996.18 On the basis of these reported data, we calculated that the 12

judges spent a total of 178 workdays in 1995 and 258 workdays in 1996 on

noncase-related travel. This is a per judge average of 14.8 workdays in

1995 and 21.5 workdays in 1996.

Together, circuit or district meetings and activities; Judicial Conference

meetings and activities; and AOUSC- or FJC-sponsored workshops, seminars,

or other activities accounted for 72 percent of all noncase-related trips and

about 79 percent of all noncase-related travel workdays reported for 1995.

Comparable figures for calendar year 1996 were about 80 percent and

about 83 percent, respectively. All but 1 of the 177 trips reported were for

18Although the Eastern District of Texas has two authorized bankruptcy judgeships, one of the

positions is vacant. Currently, the district is served by one permanent judge and one recalled judge.

For comparability, we did not include the travel of the recalled judge in our analysis because we did

not request or use data for recalled judges in the 15 districts for which we had previously reported on

bankruptcy judges’ noncase-related travel.

Page 18 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Statement 

Federal Judiciary: Bankruptcy Judgeship

Requests, 1993-1997

destinations within the United States. Overall, about 23 percent of all trips

made in these 2 years were sponsored and paid for by organizations other

than the federal judiciary. (Additional details are in app. II, tables II.8 -

II.10.)

On September 18, 1997, we provided a draft of this statement to AOUSC

officials for comment. On September 19, 1997, we met with AOUSC officials

to discuss their comments. Overall, AOUSC officials said they found the

statement to be fair and accurate. AOUSC suggested that we change our

description of the formal judgeship assessment process to state that

on-site surveys are always to be done when a district made its initial

request for additional judgeships, but are not required when the district

renews a previously-approved request and district’s weighted workload

remained at or above 1,500 weighted filings. AOUSC provided a formal

written support for this change, and we incorporated the new language

into our statement. AOUSC official also noted that judges’ personal

vacations were not included in the average of 600 hours that bankruptcy

judges are assumed to spend on activities that cannot be attributed to a

specific case. We also included several technical changes, as appropriate.

This concludes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased

to answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may

have.

Page 19 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

To identify the process, policies, and standards the Judicial Conference

used to assess the need for additional bankruptcy judgeships, we asked

the Administrative Office of U. S. Courts (AOUSC) to provide all available

documentation on the Conference’s policies, process, and standards from

1993 through 1997, including any changes that occurred during this period

and the reasons for those changes. To determine how the process,

policies, and standards were applied during the 1993, 1995, and 1997

assessment cycles, we asked AOUSC to provide all available documentation

for each step in the process from the initial bankruptcy district request to

the final Judicial Conference decision. With this documentation, we used a

structured data collection instrument to review how the Conference’s

process, policies, and standards were applied to each bankruptcy district’s

judgeship request in 1993, 1995, and 1997. We also interviewed AOUSC

officials about how the process, policies, and standards were used in the

1993, 1995, and 1997 assessment cycles.

To determine which districts had requested and used temporary assistance

from recalled judges or judges outside their districts from January 1993 to

June 1997, we contacted each of the 12 circuit executives. AOUSC did not

maintain these data, and the circuit executives had no consistent data on

the extent to which the districts actually used the assistance available.

To identify districts whose weighted case filings for each assessment

cycle—1993, 1995, 1997—were at least 1,500 per authorized judgeship, but

which did not request additional judgeships, we obtained AOUSC data on

weighted filings for each of the 90 bankruptcy districts for each of those

assessment cycles. To determine why each these districts did not request

additional judgeships, we interviewed AOUSC officials. We also interviewed

local court officials in the four districts with weighted filings of 1,500 or

more during the 1997 assessment cycle that did not request additional

judgeships.19

To identify the number, purpose, and destination of noncase-related trips

for the judges in each of the 14 districts for which the Judicial Conference

requested bankruptcy judgeships in 1997, through the AOUSC we surveyed

the judges in each district, plus the Northern District of Mississippi, which

is to share the judgeship requested for the Southern District of Mississippi.

These 15 districts have a total of 84 authorized judgeships, and we

received responses from 81 judges. However, one judge did not provide

information on the dates of each trip or the paying organization. Thus, our

19We did not speak to officials in the Northern District of Mississippi, because this district is to share

the judgeship requested for the Southern District of Mississippi.

Page 20 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

analysis is based on the responses of 80 judges. We organized the reported

trips into five categories: (1) judicial meetings and activities within the

district or circuit;20 (2) workshops, seminars, and other activities

sponsored by AOUSC or the FJC; (3) meetings, conferences, and seminars

sponsored by the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges (NCBJ), the

National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees (NABT), or the National

Association of Chapter 13 Trustees (NACTT); (4) Judicial Conference

activities;21 and (5) other.22

We did not independently verify the data on weighted filings, nor the

information bankruptcy judges provided on their noncase-related travel,

including the dates, purpose, cost, destination, or paying organization for

each trip.

20This category includes trips to circuit conferences and circuit committee meetings as well as

bankruptcy judges meetings within the circuit, either for a specific district or more than one district.

We included such meetings in this category whether or not the listed destinations were within the

geographic boundaries of the district or circuit.

21This category included trips to attend meetings of Judicial Conference committees or

subcommittees.

22This category included any activity not contained in the other four categories. It includes activities,

such as meetings or seminars sponsored by law schools, bar associations, civic associations, executive

branch agencies of the federal government, or foreign governments.

Page 21 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Appendix II 

Table II.1: Authorized Judgeships,

Judgeships Approved by the Judicial

Conference, and Weighted Case

Filings for Bankruptcy Courts

Requesting Additional Judgeships,

1993, 1995, and 1997

District

Number of

authorized

judgeships

Weighted case

filings prior

to the 1993

request

Number of

judges

approved

in 1993

D.C. 1 1,732 0

NY (E) 6 1,904 1 P

NY (N) 2 1,855 1 T

NY (S) 9 1,916 1 P & 1 T

DE 2 848 N/A

NJ 8 1,894 1 P

PA (E) 5 1,969 1 P

PA (M) 2 1,595 N/A

MD 4 2,235 1 P

VA (E) 5 1,935 1 P

MS (S) 2 1,781c 1 T

MI (E) 4 2,067 1 P

TN (W) 4 1,968 N/A

AZ 7 1,758 1 T

CA (C) 21 2,144 4 P

CA (E) 6 1,576 1 T

CA (N) 9 1,828 1 P

CA (S) 4 1,817 1 T

FL (S) 5 1,965 1 P

Totals 10 N/A 13 P & 6 T

Page 22 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Appendix II 

Weighted case

filings after

the 1993

request

Weighted case

filings prior

to the 1995

request

Number of

judges

approved

in 1995

Weighted case

filings after

the 1995

request

Weighted case

filings prior

to the 1997

request

Number of

judges

approved

in 1997

Weighted case

filings after

the 1997

request

1,732 988 N/A 988 1,053 N/A 1,053

1,632 1,675 1 T 1,436 1,753 1 T 1,487

1,237 1,538a 1 T 1,025a 1,895 1 T 1,263

1,568 1,271 0 1,271 1,510e 1 T 1,359e

848 883 N/A 883 2,065 0f 2,065

1,684 1,648 1 T 1,465 1,748 1 P 1,554

1,641 1,568 1 T 1,307 1,708 1 T 1,423

1,595 1,816 N/A 1,816 1,525 1T 1,017

1,788 1,982 1 P 1,586 2,230 1 P & 1 T 1,487

1,613 1,347b 0 1,347b 1,631 1 T 1,359

1,336c 1,324c 0 1,324c 1,646c 1 T 1,234c

1,654 1,788b 1 T 1,430b 1,679 1 T 1,343

1,968 1,984 N/A 1,984 2,345 1 P 1,876

1,538 1,117 N/A 1,117 1,014 N/A 1,014

1,801 1,795 4 P 1,508 1,940 4 P 1,630

1,351 1,496b 0d 1,496b 1,523 1 T 1,306

1,645 1,490b 0 1,490b 1,403 N/A 1,403

1,454 1,440b 0 1,440b 1,361 N/A 1,361

1,638 1,502b 1 T 1,251b 1,584 1 T 1,320

N/A N/A 5 P & 6 T N/A N/A 7 P & 11 T N/A

Note: N/A = not applicable. For entries for individual districts, N/A indicates that the district did

not request additional judgeships in that assessment cycle. For the total columns, it was not

meaningful to total the weighted filings workloads per authorized judgeship for all districts

aThe weighted case filing data for the Northern District of New York are as of June 30, 1995.

bWeighted case filing data for these districts are as of the end of the calendar year preceding the

request rather than the end of the fiscal year preceding the request.

cWeighted case filing data are combined for the Northern and Southern Districts of Mississippi

since the additional judgeship is to be shared by the two districts.

dThe additional temporary judgeship initially approved for the Eastern District of California was

later withdrawn when the case filings declined.

eThe weighted case filings for the Southern District of New York were computed using a 2-year

average for “mega cases.”

f

While no new judgeships were approved for the District of Delaware, the Conference requested

the extension of a temporary judgeship.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Page 23 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Appendix II 

Table II.2: Results of the 1993, 1995, and 1997 Needs Assessments for Additional Bankruptcy Judges, by Type of

Judgeship

Initial requests and

subsequent actions

Permanent

judgeships

Temporary

judgeships

Convert temporary

to permanent

judgeships

Extension of

temporary

judgeships

Total number

of judges

Initial bankruptcy

court request

1993 21 1 0 0 22

1995 13 5 0 0 18

1997 17 3a 1b 0 20a

Approved by the

district court

1993 21 1 0 0 22

1995 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

1997 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Approved by the

Circuit Judicial

Council

1993 20 2 0 0 22

1995 11 7 0 0 18

1997 17 4 1b 0 21

Supported by the

AOUSC survey

1993 14 5 0 0 19

1995 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

1997 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Approved by the

Bankruptcy

Committee

1993 13 6 0 0 19

1995 5 6 0 0 11

1997 7 11 0 1b 18

Approved by the

Judicial Conference

1993 13 6 0 0 19

1995 5 6 0 0 11

1997 7 11 0 1b 18

(Table notes on next page)

Page 24 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Appendix II 

Note: N/A indicates data were not sufficiently complete to be meaningful. The last formal survey of

all districts requesting additional bankruptcy judges was conducted in 1993. In 1995 there were

relatively few surveys. Surveys were conducted only when the requesting district had made no

request in 1993 or the requesting district’s weighted case filings were below 1,500. In most

bankruptcy districts, the district reviewed its weighted case filings data and, if the filings met the

1,500 threshold, renewed its request through its Circuit Judicial Council. Thus, there is little

documentation from the district courts and few surveys for 1995. Only one district was surveyed

for the 1997 request. As a result, we did not attempt to include data for the district courts or

AOUSC surveys for 1995 and 1997 in the table because it could be misleading.

aThe Southern District of Mississippi did not ask for a specific number of judges in 1997; rather

the district requested that a survey be conducted to determine if additional judgeships were

warranted.

bThese positions are not new judgeships; rather they are a change in category for existing

judgeships. As a result, these positions do not change the total number of judgeships approved.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Page 25 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Appendix II 

Table II.3: Data on the Results of the

1993, 1995, and 1997 Bankruptcy

Judgeships Needs Assessments and

the Resulting Changes in Weighted

Case Filings, by District District and year

Weighted case

filings prior to

the judgeship

requests

Initial bankruptcy

court request

D.C.

1993 1,732 1 P

1995 988 0

1997 1,053 0

NY (E)

1993 1,904 2 P

1995 1,675 1 P

1997 1,753 2 P

NY (N)

1993 1,855 1 P

1995 1,538b 1 T

1997 1,895 1 P

NY (S)

1993 1,916 1 P & 1 T

1995 1,271 1 P & 1 T

1997 1,510c 1 P & 1 T

DE

1993 848 0

1995 883 0

1997 2,065 1 Td

NJ

1993 1,894 1 P

1995 1,648 1 P

1997 1,748 1 P

PA (E)

1993 1,969 1 P

1995 1,568 1 T

1997 1,708 1 P

PA (M)

1993 1,595 0

1995 1,816 0

1997 1,525 1 T

MD

1993 2,235 1 P

1995 1,982 1 P

1997 2,230 2 P

Page 26 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Appendix II 

Approved by the

district court

Approved by the

Circuit Judicial

Council

Supported by the

AOUSC survey

Approved by the

Bankruptcy

Committee

Approved by the

Judicial

Conference

Weighted case

filings after the

judgeship

approval

1 P 1 P/Ta 0 0 0 1,732

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 988

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,053

2 P 2 P 1 P 1 P 1 P 1,632

N/A 1 P N/A 1 T 1 T 1,436

N/A 2 P N/A 1 T 1 T 1,487

1 P 1 P 1 T 1 T 1 T 1,237

1 T 1 T 1 T 1 T 1 T 1,025b

N/A 1 P N/A 1 T 1 T 1,263

1 P & 1 T 1 P & 1 T 1 P & 1 T 1 P & 1 T 1 P & 1 T 1,568

1 P & 1 T 1 P & 1 T 1 T 0 0 1,271

N/A 1 P & 1 T N/A 1 T 1 T 1,359c

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 848

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 883

1 Td 1 Td 0e 0e 0c 2,065

1 P 1 P 1 P 1 P 1 P 1,684

N/A 1 P N/A 1 T 1 T 1,465

N/A 1 P N/A 1 P 1 P 1,554

1 P 1 P 1 P 1 P 1 P 1,641

0 1 T 1 T 1 T 1 T 1,307

N/A 1 P N/A 1 T 1 T 1,423

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,595

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,816

N/A 1 T N/A 1 T 1 T 1,017

1 P 1 P 1 P 1 P 1 P 1,788

N/A 1 P N/A 1 P 1 P 1,586

N/A 2 P N/A 1 P & 1 T 1 P & 1 T 1,487

(continued)

Page 27 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Appendix II 

District and year

Weighted case

filings prior to

the judgeship

requests

Initial bankruptcy

court request

VA (E)

1993 1,935 1 P

1995 1,347f 1 P

1997 1,631 1 P

MS (S)

1993 1,781g 1 P

1995 1,324g 1 P

1997 1,646g h

MI (E)

1993 2,067 1 P

1995 1,788f 1 P

1997 1,679 1 P

TN (W)

1993 1,968 0

1995 1,984 0

1997 2,345 1 P

AZ

1993 1,758 1 P

1995 1,117 0

1997 1,014 0

CA (C)

1993 2,144 4 P

1995 1,795 4 P

1997 1,940 4 P

CA (E)

1993 1,576 1 P

1995 1,496f 1 P

1997 1,523 1 P

CA (N)

1993 1,828 2 P

1995 1,490f 1 T

1997 1,403 0

CA (S)

1993 1,817 1 P

1995 1,440f 1 T

1997 1,361 0

Page 28 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Appendix II 

Approved by the

district court

Approved by the

Circuit Judicial

Council

Supported by the

AOUSC survey

Approved by the

Bankruptcy

Committee

Approved by the

Judicial

Conference

Weighted case

filings after the

judgeship

approval

1 P 1 P 1 P 1 P 1 P 1,613

1 P 1 P 0 0 0 1,347f

N/A 1 P N/A 1 T 1 T 1,359

1 P 1 P 1 P 1 T 1 T 1,336g

N/D 1 T 0 0 0 1,324g

h 1 T N/A 1 T 1 T 1,234g

1 P 1 P 1 P 1 P 1 P 1,654

1 P 1 P 1 P 1 T 1 T 1,430f

N/A 1 P N/A 1 T 1 T 1,343

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,968

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,984

N/A 1 P N/A 1 P 1 P 1,876

1 P 1 P 1 T 1 T 1 T 1,538

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,117

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,014

4 P 4 P 4 P 4 P 4 P 1,801

N/A 4 P N/A 4 P 4 P 1,508

N/A 4 P N/A 4 P 4 P 1,630

1 P 1 P 1 T 1 T 1 T 1,351

N/D 1 T 1 T 0 0 1,496f

N/A 1 P N/A 1 T 1 T 1,306

2 P 2 P 1 P 1 P 1 P 1,645

N/D 1 T 1 T 0 0 1,490f

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,403

1 P 1 P 1 T 1 T 1 T 1,454

1 T 1 T 0 0 0 1,440f

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,361

(continued)

Page 29 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Appendix II 

District and year

Weighted case

filings prior to

the judgeship

requests

Initial bankruptcy

court request

FL (S)

1993 1,965 1 P

1995 1,502f 1 P

1997 1,584 1 P

Totals

1993 N/A 21 P & 1 T

1995 N/A 13 P & 5 T

1997 N/A 17 P & 3 T

Page 30 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Appendix II 

Approved by the

district court

Approved by the

Circuit Judicial

Council

Supported by the

AOUSC survey

Approved by the

Bankruptcy

Committee

Approved by the

Judicial

Conference

Weighted case

filings after the

judgeship

approval

1 P 1 P 1 P 1 P 1 P 1,638

1 P 1 P 1 P 1 T 1 T 1,251f

N/A 1 P N/A 1 T 1 T 1,320

21 P & 1 T 20 P & 2 Ta 14 P & 5 T 13 P & 6 T 13 P & 6 T N/A

N/A 11 P & 7 T N/A 5 P & 6 T 5 P & 6 T N/A

N/A 17 P & 4 T N/A 7 P & 11 T 7 P & 11 T N/A

Legends

P = Permanent judgeship

T = Temporary judgeship

N/D = Not documented

Note 1: N/A indicates data were not sufficiently complete to be meaningful. The last formal

surveys of the districts requesting additional bankruptcy judges were performed in 1993. Only

when the requests were new (i.e., no survey had been performed since 1993) or if the weighted

case filings were below 1,500 were surveys conducted. In most districts, the bankruptcy courts

reviewed the weighted case filings data; and if the case filings were above the 1,500 threshold,

the courts would renew their request through their respective Circuit Judicial Council. Thus, there

is little documentation from the district courts and relatively few surveys were performed in 1995

or 1997. As a result, we did not attempt to factor in the data for the district courts or AOUSC

surveys in these 2 years because the data would be misleading.

Note 2: Based on guidance provided by AOUSC, unless documented otherwise, all requests by

the bankruptcy courts for additional judgeships were assumed to be for permanent positions.

aThe Circuit Judicial Council supported the request for an additional judgeship but was unsure

whether the judgeship should be a temporary or permanent position. In our analysis, we counted

the judgeship approved for D.C. as a temporary judgeship.

bThe weighted case filing data for the northern district of New York are as current of June 30,

1995.

cThe weighted case filings for the southern district of New York were computed using a 2-year

average for “mega cases.”

dDelaware also asked for a temporary judgeship to be converted to a permanent judgeship.

eWhile no new judgeships were approved for Delaware, a temporary judgeship was extended.

f

Weighted case filing data for these districts are as current of the end of the calendar year

preceding the request, rather than the end of the fiscal year preceding the request.

gWeighted case filing data are shown for the northern and southern districts Mississippi combined

since the additional judgeship is to be shared by the two districts.

hMississippi (Southern) did not ask for a specific number of judges in 1997, rather the district

requested that a survey be performed to determine if any additional judgeships were warranted.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Page 31 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Appendix II 

Table II.4: Alternative Resources Assigned to and Provided by Districts Requesting Additional Bankruptcy Judgeships

During the Period January 1993 to June 1997

Resources assigned to district

Resources provided by district

Circuit/District Recalled judges

Judges from within

the circuit

Judges from

another circuit

Provided judges to

other districts

within the circuit

Provided judges to

districts in other

circuits

D.C. X X

Second

NY (E) X X

NY (N) X X X

NY (S) X X X

Third

DE X

NJ X X

PA (E) X X

PA (M)

Fourth

MD X X X

VA (E) X X

Fifth

MS (S) X X

Sixth

MI (E) X

TN (W) X Xa X

Ninth

AZ X b

CA (C) X b

CA (E) X b

CA (N) X b

CA (S) X b

Eleventh

FL (S) X X

aTennessee (Western) provided a judge for one case in Tennessee (Middle) when all the judges

in that district were disqualified.

bThe Ninth Circuit uses the “work equalization program” in which cases from districts with

above-average caseloads are transferred to districts with below-average caseloads. According to

the circuit, this minimizes the inconvenience to the parties and reduces travel expenses. Because

of this program, the cases within the Ninth Circuit are transferred rather than using intracircuit

assignments of judges.

Source: GAO analysis of Circuit Executive data.

Page 32 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Appendix II 

Table II.5: Weighted Case Filings Per

Bankruptcy Judgeship for 1993, in

Rank Order by District for Districts

With Weighted Case Filings at or

Above 1,500 Per Judgeship District

Number of

judgeships

requested in 1993

Weighted case filings

per authorized

judgeship as of

June 30, 1993

MA 0 2,183

MD 1 2,168

CA (C) 4 2,058

D.C. 1 2,052

MI (E) 1 2,025

NY (E) 2 1,993

NJ 1 1,984

TN (W) 0 1,965

NY (N) 1 1,810

NY (S) 2 1,807

PA (M) 0 1,801

MS (N) 0a 1,796

AL (N) 0 1,774

PA (E) 1 1,748

VA (E) 1 1,742

CA (S) 1 1,736

CA (E) 1 1,734

FL (S) 1 1,732

CA (N) 2 1,729

CT 0 1,677

TX (N) 0 1,629

AZ 1 1,623

GA (S) 0 1,610

TN (M) 0 1,560

RI 0 1,540

Note: All districts in bold type had weighted case filings of more than 1,500 per judgeship but did

not request additional judgeships.

aWhile Mississippi (Northern) did not request a judgeship, it was to share the judgeship requested

by Mississippi (Southern).

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Page 33 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Appendix II 

Table II.6: Weighted Case Filings Per

Bankruptcy Judgeship for 1995, in

Rank Order by District for Districts

With Weighted Case Filings at or

Above 1,500 Per Judgeship District

Number of

judgeships

requested in 1995

Weighted case filings

per authorized

judgeship as of

June 30, 1995

TN (W) 0 1,984

MD 1 1,982

PA (M) 0 1,816

CA (C) 4 1,795

AL (N) 0 1,784

PA (E) 1 1,686

MI (E) 1 1,680

NY (E) 1 1,675

NJ 1 1,648

MA 0 1,556

NY (N) 1 1,538

FL (S) 1 1,506

Note: All districts in bold type had weighted case filings of more than 1,500 per judgeship but did

not request additional judgeships.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Page 34 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Appendix II 

Table II.7: Weighted Case Filings Per

Bankruptcy Judgeship for 1997, in

Rank Order by District for Districts

With Weighted Case Filings at or

Above 1,500 Per Judgeship District

Number of

judgeships

requested in 1997

Weighted case filings

per authorized

judgeship as of

June 30, 1996

TN (W) 1 2,345

MD 2 2,230

DE 1 2,065

CA (C) 4 1,940

NY (N) 1 1,895

MS (N) 0 a 1,767

AL (N) 0 1,765

NJ 1 1,748

NY (E) 2 1,735

PA (E) 1 1,708

GA (M) 0 1,691

MI (E) 1 1,679

GA (S) 0 1,674

VA (E) 1 1,631

TX (E) 0 1,615

MS (S) 0b 1,585

FL (S) 1 1,584

PA (M) 1 1,525

CA (E) 1 1,523

Note: All districts in bold type had weighted case filings of more than 1,500 per judgeship but did

not request additional judgeships.

aWhile Mississippi (Northern) did not request a judgeship, it was to share the judgeship requested

by Mississippi (Southern).

bMississippi (Southern) did not ask for a specific number of judges in 1997, rather the district

requested that a survey be performed to determine if any additional judgeships were warranted.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Page 35 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Appendix II 

Table II.8: Information on the Number Trips, Total Travel Days, Total Workdays, and the Purpose of Bankruptcy Judges’

Noncase-Related Trips in the Four Districts Whose Weighted Filings Were 1,500 or More but Did Not Request Judgeships

in the 1997 Assessment Cycle

District/number of judges/year

Number of

trips each

year

Number of

travel days

each year

Number of

work days

each year Purpose

Alabama (Northern)

6 judges

20 38 30 Circuit or district meetings, activities

12 55 48 AOUSC or FJC workshops, seminars,

activities

2 12 7 NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT conferences

0 0 0 Judicial Conference meetings, activities

15 25 21 Other (e.g., law school seminars, bar

association meetings)

1995 total 49 130 106

25 44 37 Circuit or district meetings, activities

22 90 84 AOUSC or FJC workshops, seminars,

activities

1 5 4 NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT conferences

0 0 0 Judicial Conference meetings, activities

15 42 28 Other (e.g., law school seminars, bar

association meetings)

1996 total 63 181 153

Georgia (Middle)a

2.5 judges

4 18 12 Circuit or district meetings, activities

11 45 36 AOUSC or FJC workshops, seminars,

activities

0 0 0 NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT conferences

0 0 0 Judicial Conference meetings, activities

1 4 3 Other (e.g., law school seminars, bar

association meetings)

1995 total 16 67 51

Georgia (Middle) continued 4 16 11 Circuit or district meetings, activities

16 54 48 AOUSC or FJC workshops, seminars,

activities

0 0 0 NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT conferences

0 0 0 Judicial Conference meetings, activities

3 10 9 Other (e.g., law school seminars, bar

association meetings)

1996 total 23 80 68

Georgia (Southern)a

2.5 judges

3 12 9 Circuit or district meetings, activities

(continued)

Page 36 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Appendix II 

District/number of judges/year

Number of

trips each

year

Number of

travel days

each year

Number of

work days

each year Purpose

3 5 3 AOUSC or FJC workshops, seminars,

activities

0 0 0 NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT conferences

0 0 0 Judicial Conference meetings, activities

1 2 2 Other (e.g., law school seminars, bar

association meetings)

1995 total 7 19 14

3 12 7 Circuit or district meetings, activities

6 14 12 AOUSC or FJC workshops, seminars,

activities

0 0 0 NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT conferences

0 0 0 Judicial Conference meetings, activities

1 2 2 Other (e.g., law school seminars, bar

association meetings)

1996 Total 10 28 21

Texas (Eastern)b

2 judges

1 4 3 Circuit or district meetings, activities

0 0 0 AOUSC or FJC workshops, seminars,

activities

0 0 0 NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT conferences

0 0 0 Judicial Conference meetings, activities

2 6 4 Other (e.g., law school seminars, bar

association meetings)

1995 total 3 10 7

1 4 3 Circuit or district meetings, activities

5 16 13 AOUSC or FJC workshops, seminars,

activities

0 0 0 NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT conferences

0 0 0 Judicial Conference meetings, activities

0 0 0 Other (e.g., law school seminars, bar

association meetings)

1996 total 6 20 16

aThe Middle and Southern Districts of Georgia share a bankruptcy judgeship. The travel data for

this shared judgeship are included in the totals for the Middle District of Georgia.

bThe Eastern District of Texas has two authorized bankruptcy judgeships, but one of the positions

is vacant. Currently, the second judge in the district is a recalled judge. Our analysis excluded

the travel data for the recalled judge because we did not receive or report travel data for recalled

judges in the 15 districts for which we reported in our correspondence of August 8, 1997.

Source: GAO analysis of bankruptcy judges’ travel data.

Page 37 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Appendix II 

Table II.9: Information on the Purpose and Destinations of Bankruptcy Judges’ Noncase-Related Trips in the Four Districts

Whose Weighted Filings Were 1,500 or More but Did Not Request Judgeships in the 1997 Assessment Cycle

District/number of judges/year

Number of

trips each year Purpose Destination (number of trips)

Alabama (Northern)

6 judges

20 Circuit or district meetings, activities Birmingham, AL (7); Asheville, NC

(4); Tuscaloosa, AL (4); Anniston, AL

(4); Amelia Island FL

12 AOUSC or FJC workshops,

seminars, activities

Washington, D.C. (4); San Antonio,

TX (3); Orlando, FL (2); Boston, MA;

Marina Del Rey, CA; Clearwater, FL

2 NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT

conferences

New Orleans, LA; Boston, MA

0 Judicial Conference meetings,

activities

N/A

15 Other (e.g., law school seminars,

bar association meetings)

Birmingham, AL (6); Montgomery, AL

(3); Washington, D.C. (2); Talladega,

AL; Troy, AL; Perdido Beach, AL;

Orlando, FL

1995 total 49 N/A

25 Circuit or district meetings, activities Birmingham, AL (9); Panama City, FL

(6); Tuscaloosa, AL (4); Decatur, AL

(3); Anniston, AL (3)

22 AOUSC or FJC workshops,

seminars, activities

San Francisco, CA (7); Atlanta, GA

(6); San Antonio, Tx (3); Kansas City,

MO (2); Tempe, AZ; Mobile, AL;

Chicago, IL; Philadelphia, PA

1 NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT

conferences

San Diego, CA

0 Judicial Conference meetings,

activities

N/A

15 Other (e.g., law school seminars,

bar association meetings)

Perdido Beach, AL (4); Montgomery,

AL (3); Birmingham, AL (2); Hilton

Head, SC; San Antonio, TX; Orlando,

Florida; Tuskegee, AL; San

Francisco, CA; Sofia, Bulgaria

1996 total 63

Georgia (Middle)a

2.5 judges

4 Circuit or district meetings, activities Asheville, NC (3); Amelia Island, FL

11 AOUSC or FJC workshops,

seminars, activities

Boston, MA (3); San Francisco, CA

(2); Washington, D.C. (2); Amelia

Island, FL; San Antonio, TX; Atlanta,

GA; Augusta, GA

0 NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT

conferences

N/A

0 Judicial Conference meetings,

activities

N/A

(continued)

Page 38 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Appendix II 

District/number of judges/year

Number of

trips each year Purpose Destination (number of trips)

1 Other (e.g., law school seminars,

bar association meetings)

San Francisco, CA

1995 total 16

4 Circuit or district meetings, activities Panama City, FL (3); Ponte Vedra, FL

16 AOUSC or FJC workshops,

seminars, activities

Chicago, IL (3); San Antonio, TX (3);

Macon, GA (2); San Francisco, CA;

Philadelphia, PA; Washington, D.C.;

Savannah, GA; Amelia Island, FL;

Brunswick, GA; Atlanta, GA; Albany,

GA

0 NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT

conferences

N/A

0 Judicial Conference meetings,

activities

N/A

3 Other (e.g., law school seminars,

bar association meetings)

Washington, D.C. (2); Santa Fe, NM

1996 total 23

Georgia (Southern)a

2.5 judges

3 Circuit or district meetings, activities Asheville, NC (2); Amelia Island, FL

3 AOUSC or FJC workshops,

seminars, activities

Amelia Island, FL (2); Savannah, GA

0 NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT

conferences

N/A

0 Judicial Conference meetings,

activities

N/A

1 Other (e.g., law school seminars,

bar association meetings)

Atlanta, GA

1995 total 7

Georgia (Southern) continued 3 Circuit or district meetings, activities Panama City, FL (2); Ponte Vedra, FL

6 AOUSC or FJC workshops,

seminars, activities

Amelia Island, FL (2); San Francisco,

CA; Brunswick, GA; Atlanta, GA;

Savannah, GA

0 NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT

conferences

N/A

0 Judicial Conference meetings,

activities

N/A

1 Other (e.g., law school seminars,

bar association meetings)

Brunswick, GA

1996 total 10

Texas (Eastern)b

2 judges

1 Circuit or district meetings, activities New Orleans, LA

0 AOUSC or FJC workshops,

seminars, activities

N/A

(continued)

Page 39 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Appendix II 

District/number of judges/year

Number of

trips each year Purpose Destination (number of trips)

0 NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT

conferences

N/A

0 Judicial Conference meetings,

activities

N/A

2 Other (e.g., law school seminars,

bar association meetings)

Palm Beach, FL; Houston, TX

1995 total 3

1 Circuit or district meetings, activities Ft. Worth, TX

5 AOUSC or FJC workshops,

seminars, activities

Tyler, TX (2); San Francisco, CA;

Washington, DC; San Antonio, TX

0 NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT

conferences

N/A

0 Judicial Conference meetings,

activities

N/A

0 Other (e.g., law school seminars,

bar association meetings)

N/A

1996 total 6

Note: N/A = not applicable.

aThe Middle and Southern Districts of Georgia share a bankruptcy judgeship. The travel data for

this shared judgeship are included in the totals for the Middle District of Georgia.

bThe Eastern District of Texas has two authorized bankruptcy judgeships, but one of the positions

is vacant. Currently, the second judge in the district is a recalled judge. Our analysis excluded

the travel data for the recalled judge because we did not receive or report travel data for recalled

judges in the 15 districts for which we reported in our correspondence of August 8, 1997.

Source: GAO analysis of bankruptcy judges’ travel data.

Table II.10: Information on the Purpose and Paying Organizations for Bankruptcy Judges’ Noncase-Related Trips in the

Four Districts Whose Weighted Filings Were 1,500 or More but Did Not Request Judgeships in the 1997 Assessment Cycle

District/number of judges/year

Number of

trips each year Purpose Paying organization

Alabama (Northern)

6 judges

20 Circuit or district meetings, activities Federal Judiciary (20)

12 AOUSC or FJC workshops,

seminars, activities

Federal Judiciary (12)

2 NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT

conferences

NCBJ endowment; NACTT

0 Judicial Conference meetings,

activities

N/A

(continued)

Page 40 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Appendix II 

District/number of judges/year

Number of

trips each year Purpose Paying organization

15 Other (e.g., law school seminars,

bar association meetings)

Arts Council (4); Univ. of Alabama

Law School (3); Cumberland School

of Law (2); Alabama Bar Assoc. (2);

U.S. AID (2); Alabama Bankers;

American Bar Assoc.

1995 total 49

25 Circuit or district meetings, activities Federal Judiciary (25)

22 AOUSC or FJC workshops,

seminars, activities

Federal Judiciary (22)

1 NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT

conferences

NCBJ

0 Judicial Conference meetings,

activities

N/A

15 Other (e.g., law school seminars,

bar association meetings)

Alabama State Bar (4); Arts Council

(3); American Bar Assoc. (2);

Cumberland School of Law (2); U.S.

AID; ABI; Alabama Courts; Assoc. of

Bankruptcy Judicial Assts.

1996 total 63

Georgia (Middle)a

2.5 judges

4 Circuit or district meetings, activities Federal Judiciary (4)

11 AOUSC or FJC workshops,

seminars, activities

Federal Judiciary (11)

0 NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT

conferences

N/A

0 Judicial Conference meetings,

activities

N/A

1 Other (e.g., law school seminars,

bar association meetings)

Norton Institute on Bankruptcy Law

1995 total 16

4 Circuit or district meetings, activities Federal Judiciary (4)

16 AOUSC or FJC workshops,

seminars, activities

Federal Judiciary (16)

0 NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT

conferences

N/A

0 Judicial Conference meetings,

activities

N/A

3 Other (e.g., law school seminars,

bar association meetings)

NCBJ (2); National Bankruptcy

Review Commission

1996 total 23

Georgia (Southern)a

2.5 judges

3 Circuit or district meetings, activities Federal Judiciary (3)

3 AOUSC or FJC workshops,

seminars, activities

Federal Judiciary (3)

(continued)

Page 41 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Appendix II 

District/number of judges/year

Number of

trips each year Purpose Paying organization

0 NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT

conferences

N/A

0 Judicial Conference meetings,

activities

N/A

1 Other (e.g., law school seminars,

bar association meetings)

Institute for Continuing Legal

Education (ICLE) - Georgia

1995 total 7

Georgia (Southern) continued 3 Circuit or district meetings, activities Federal Judiciary (3)

6 AOUSC or FJC workshops,

seminars, activities

Federal Judiciary (6)

0 NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT

conferences

N/A

0 Judicial Conference meetings,

activities

N/A

1 Other (e.g., law school seminars,

bar association meetings)

Federal Judiciary

1996 total 10

Texas (Eastern)b

2 judges

1 Circuit or district meetings, activities Federal Judiciary

0 AOUSC or FJC workshops,

seminars, activities

N/A

0 NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT

conferences

N/A

0 Judicial Conference meetings,

activities

N/A

2 Other (e.g., law school seminars,

bar association meetings)

State Bar of Texas; American College

of Mortgage Attorneys

1995 total 3

1 Circuit or district meetings, activities Federal Judiciary

5 AOUSC or FJC workshops,

seminars, activities

Federal Judiciary (5)

0 NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT

conferences

N/A

0 Judicial Conference meetings,

activities

N/A

0 Other (e.g., law school seminars,

bar association meetings)

N/A

1996 total 6

(Table notes on next page)

Page 42 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Appendix II 

Note: N/A = not applicable.

aThe Middle and Southern Districts of Georgia share a bankruptcy judgeship. The travel data for

this shared judgeship are included in the totals for the Middle District of Georgia.

bThe Eastern District of Texas has two authorized bankruptcy judgeships, but one of the positions

is vacant. Currently, the second judge in the district is a recalled judge. Our analysis excluded

the travel data for the recalled judge because we did not receive or report travel data for recalled

judges in the 15 districts for which we reported in our correspondence of August 8, 1997.

Source: GAO analysis of bankruptcy judges’ travel data.

(188628) Page 43 GAO/T-GGD-97-183
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100