FEDERAL JUDICIARY

Information on the

Use of Recalled

Magistrate and

Bankruptcy Judges

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Honorable

Jack Reed, U.S. Senate

January 1999

GAO/GGD-99-22

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-280364

Page 1 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

GAO

January 15, 1999

Honorable Jack Reed

United States Senate

Dear Senator Reed:

As you requested, this report discusses the federal judiciary’s use of

recalled magistrate judges and bankruptcy judges. Recalled judges are

retired magistrate and bankruptcy judges who, with their consent, return

to judicial duties for a specified period of time. The use of recalled judges

is one option district courts and bankruptcy courts have for obtaining

temporary judicial assistance when they are experiencing a temporary

workload increase, have one or more judgeship vacancies, or for other

reasons.1

Specifically, as agreed with your office, our objectives were to determine

(1) whether the demand for recalled magistrate and bankruptcy judges has

exceeded the number of judges available to serve in recalled positions, (2)

whether the courts that recalled judges had judgeship vacancies and/or

higher than average weighted case filings,2

 and (3) the approximate 1-year

cost savings associated with using a recalled judge rather than filling a fulltime judgeship position.

During the period from October 1, 1989, through April 30, 1998, all of the

district courts and all but one of the bankruptcy courts whose requests for

recalled judges had been approved by the circuit judicial councils3

 were

able to obtain the services of a recalled judge.4

 During this period, 25 of the 

1

 The courts can also use visiting judges from other districts. Visiting judges are usually active

(nonretired) judges from other courts who are assigned to provide assistance to a requesting court for

a specified period of time. Visiting judges may be from within the same judicial circuit as the requesting

court (intracircuit assignments) or from outside the judicial circuit (intercircuit assignments). District

courts and bankruptcy courts are organized in 12 geographic circuits whose boundaries are defined by

statute. There is also a court of appeals for the federal circuit, but this circuit has no role in magistrate

and bankruptcy judge recalls.

2

 Weighted case filings represent a measure of the average amount of judicial time that a district or

bankruptcy court’s filings may require.

3

 Each circuit has a Judicial Council of the Circuit that is statutorily charged with making all necessary

and appropriate orders for the effective and expeditious administration of justice within the circuit.

The council consists of equal numbers of active court of appeals judges and active district court judges

within the circuit, plus the chief judge of the circuit, who is the presiding officer.

4

 Administrative Office of the U.S. Court’s (AOUSC) data excluded recall appointments made on or

after October 1 that expired prior to September 30 in each fiscal year, from 1990 to 1997. AOUSC’s data

also excluded any recall appointments made on or after October 1, 1997, that expired prior to April 30,

1998. Thus, these data may have excluded some short-term appointments that expired prior to the end

Results in Brief
B-280364

Page 2 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

92 district courts with magistrate judges and 33 of the 90 bankruptcy

courts used at least 1 retired magistrate or bankruptcy judge. The single

bankruptcy court whose approved request was not filled had requested the

appointment of two recalled bankruptcy judges in 1993. One appointment

was made, and data were not available on why the second appointment

was not made. One possible reason is that Congress had authorized two

additional bankruptcy judgeships for this court in 1992.

In considering whether the demand for recalled judges exceeded the

number of judges available to serve in recall appointments, it is important

to note that the 111 recalled magistrate judge appointments and the 159

recalled bankruptcy judge appointments were filled by a relatively small

number of eligible judges who were often reappointed to their recalled

positions one or more times. A total of 96 magistrate judges and 60

bankruptcy judges were eligible for recall for at least part of the period

covered by our review. The recall appointments were filled by 33 separate

retired magistrate judges and 43 separate retired bankruptcy judges.

District courts or bankruptcy courts that recalled judges showed no clear

pattern of judgeship vacancies, and bankruptcy courts that recalled judges

showed no clear pattern of weighted case filings. Some district courts or

bankruptcy courts used recalled judges for at least a portion of the time

the court had a magistrate judgeship or bankruptcy judgeship vacancy,

while other district courts or bankruptcy courts with magistrate judgeship

or bankruptcy judgeship vacancies did not use recalled judges.

The bankruptcy courts that used recalled judges during the period of our

review had widely varying weighted case filings. For those bankruptcy

courts that recalled bankruptcy judges, the weighted case filings ranged

from 619 to 2,144 per bankruptcy judgeship in fiscal year 1992 and from

639 to 2,321 in fiscal year 1997. National average weighted filings per

bankruptcy judgeship were 1,437 in fiscal year 1992 and 1,436 in fiscal year

1997.

The Judicial Conference has not adopted case weight measures for

magistrate judges. However, at your request, we are providing information

on district court weighted case filings, which were developed to measure

the case filings workload of district judges, not magistrate judges.

 of the fiscal year. However, both AOUSC officials and the circuit executives we interviewed said the

data we received would have excluded few recalls because there have been few recall appointments of

less than 1 year.
B-280364

Page 3 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

According to Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) data,

recalled magistrate and bankruptcy judges are less costly than full-time

nonretired judges. The estimated fiscal year 1999 annual recurring cost of

a full-time nonretired magistrate judge is about $602,000, and the cost of a

full-time bankruptcy judge is about $575,000. These costs include the

salaries and benefits of the judge and his or her support staff, space,

equipment, and facilities. In contrast, AOUSC data indicated that the

average annual cost of a recalled magistrate judge ranged from about

$87,000 to about $253,000. The average annual cost of a recalled

bankruptcy judge ranged from about $93,000 to about $241,000. The lower

cost figures represent the average annual cost of a recalled magistrate or

bankruptcy judge who retired at full salary and whose sole personal staff is

a full-time secretary. The higher cost figures represent a recalled

magistrate or bankruptcy judge who did not retire at full salary, earns

about $32,000 annually while on recall, and has a full staff.

Ninety-two of the 94 federal district courts include district court judges

and magistrate judges.5

 District court judges generally are appointed for

life6

 and exercise the full range of judicial authority vested in the district

courts. Magistrate judges are appointed for a fixed term of years to either

full- or part-time positions.7

 Magistrate judges exercise the judicial duties

permissible by statute and the Constitution that the district courts delegate

to them. Generally, a district court assigns magistrate judges all

misdemeanor criminal cases8

 and the conduct of preliminary proceedings

in felony criminal cases.9

 In civil cases, magistrate judges may also

supervise pretrial proceedings. In addition, with the consent of the parties

in the case, magistrate judges may preside over all phases of a civil suit,

including trial, and render a decision in the case.

 5

 The district courts in the U.S. territories of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands do not have

magistrate judges.

6

 Judges appointed to the district courts in the U.S. territories of Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands,

and the Virgin Islands are appointed for 10-year terms.

7

 Full-time magistrate judges are appointed for 8-year terms and part-time magistrate judges for 4-year

terms.

8

 Generally, those federal crimes that carry a maximum penalty of imprisonment of 1 year or less.

9

 Generally, those federal crimes that carry a maximum penalty of imprisonment of more than 1 year.

Background
B-280364

Page 4 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

With some exceptions, the 90 federal bankruptcy courts preside over all

bankruptcy cases filed in the United States.10 Bankruptcy judges are

appointed for 14-year terms and are appointed only to full-time positions.

Eligible retired magistrate and bankruptcy judges may be recalled to

judicial service with their consent. With a few exceptions, all retired

magistrate and bankruptcy judges are eligible for recall. Retired magistrate

and bankruptcy judges who receive an annuity under the Judicial

Retirement System (JRS) and elect to practice law are not eligible for

recall. Retired magistrate judges who did not retire under JRS, and have

elected to practice law after retirement, may continue to practice law if

recalled for part-time service, but they may not continue to practice law if

recalled to full-time service.

The decision to seek the appointment of a recalled judge rests with the

district court or bankruptcy court that determines it needs the services of

a recalled judge. The circuit judicial council must approve the request,

specify the calendar period of the recall, specify whether the appointment

is for full-time or part-time service, and determine the personal support

staff, if any, that the recalled judge may have. Additional information on

the recall process can be found in appendix I.

Recalled judges are paid a salary that represents the difference between

their retirement pensions and the full salary of the office to which they

were recalled. For example, a bankruptcy judge who retired in fiscal year

1998 with a pension of $80,000 and was recalled to full-time service in the

same fiscal year would receive annual wages of $45,764. This is the

difference between the judge’s pension and the $125,764 fiscal year 1998

salary of an active bankruptcy judge. A recalled judge who had retired at

full salary would receive no additional compensation for recall service.

Appendix II provides additional information on the conditions and

compensation of recall judges.

Our objectives were to determine (1) whether the demand for recalled

magistrate and bankruptcy judges has exceeded the number of judges

available to serve in recalled positions, (2) whether the district and

bankruptcy courts that recalled judges had judgeship vacancies and/or

higher than average weighted case filings, and (3) the approximate 1-year

cost savings associated with using a recalled judge rather than filling a full-

 10 By statute, the district courts retain original jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases. However, with few

exceptions, the district courts have adopted a policy of referring all bankruptcy matters to the

bankruptcy courts within their respective districts.

Scope and

Methodology
B-280364

Page 5 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

time judgeship position. Our review covered the use of recalled magistrate

and bankruptcy judges during the period October 1, 1989, through April 30,

1998. We obtained most of the data needed to address our objectives

through AOUSC. We requested data by district on the number of retired

and recalled magistrate judges and bankruptcy judges, including data by

district on the number of retired magistrate and bankruptcy judges who

were eligible for recall each year and the number of eligible judges who

were actually recalled each year. We reviewed the data AOUSC provided

for internal consistency by choosing a judgmental sample of retired and

recalled judges, tracing the data back to source documents, and verifying

that the data provided matched the data in the source documents. Our

judgmental sample included retired and recalled judges from different

fiscal years and geographically dispersed district and bankruptcy courts.

We requested data for the same period for magistrate and bankruptcy

judgeship vacancies in those district and bankruptcy courts that recalled

judges. We requested the weighted case filings of the 94 district courts and

90 bankruptcy courts for fiscal years 1990 through 1997.

We obtained written comments on a draft of this report from AOUSC.

These comments are discussed at the end of this letter and are reprinted in

appendix VI .

Our work was performed from May 1998 to December 1998 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards. Our objectives,

scope, and methodology are described in more detail in appendix III.

A minority of district and bankruptcy courts used recalled judges during

the period covered by our review (October 1, 1989, through April 30, 1998).

During this period,11 25 of the 92 district courts with magistrate judges

(27.2 percent) and 33 of the 90 bankruptcy courts (36.7 percent) recalled at

least 1 judge (see figs. 1 and 2). However, at least 1 district court and 1

bankruptcy court in each of the 12 regional circuits had recalled a judge

during this period.

 

11 Data on recalled judges are as of September 30 for fiscal years 1990 through 1997, and April 30, 1998,

for fiscal year 1998.

Data on the Use of

Recalled Magistrate

and Bankruptcy Judges
B-280364

Page 6 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

WA

OR

NV

AZ

CA

C

S

W

W

N

S

E

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

M

M

M

E

E

E

NY-E

E

E

E

E

E

E

M

M M

M

E

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

C

S

N

N N

N N N

N

N

N

N

N

E

E

N

W E

ID

MT

WY

UT

CO

NM

TX

MS

AL

SC

MD

CT

NC

VA

WV

TN

KY

OH

PA NJ

DE Virgin

Islands

Puerto

Rico

D.C.

Circuit

Federal

Circuit

Districts that recalled at least one magistrate judge

C, M, N, W, S, E = State districts

MI

NY

MA RI

NH

ME

VT

ND

SD

NE

MN

IA

MO

AR

IL IN

WI

GA

LA FL

HI

AK

Guam Northern

Mariana

Islands

KS

OK

9

8

7

10

9

5

11

4

6

2

1

3

Note: C = central; M = middle; N = northern; W = western; S = southern; E = eastern

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Figure 1: Twenty Five District Courts, by Circuit, That Had a Recalled Magistrate Judge on Duty at the End of One or More

Fiscal Years, 1990-1997, or as of April 30 1998
B-280364

Page 7 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

WA

OR

NV

AZ

CA

C

S

W

W

N

S

E

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

M

M

M

E

E

E

NY-E

E

E

E

E

E

E

M

M M

M

E

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

C

S

N

N N

N N N

N

N

N

N

N

E

E

N

W E

ID

MT

WY

UT

CO

NM

TX

MS

AL

SC

MD

CT

NC

VA

WV

TN

KY

OH

PA NJ

DE Virgin

Islands

Puerto

Rico

D.C.

Circuit

Federal

Circuit

Districts that recalled at least one bankruptcy judge

C, M, N, W, S, E = State districts

MI

NY

MA RI

NH

ME

VT

ND

SD

NE

MN

IA

MO

AR

IL IN

WI

GA

FL LA

HI

AK

Guam Northern

Mariana

Islands

KS

OK

9

8

7

10

9

5

11

4

6

2

1

3

Note: C = central; M = middle; N = northern; W = western; S = southern; E = eastern

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Figure 2: Thirty-Three Bankruptcy Courts, by Circuit, That Had a Recalled Bankruptcy Judge on Duty at the End of One or

More Fiscal Years, 1990-1997, or as of April 30, 1998
B-280364

Page 8 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

The 25 district courts that recalled magistrate judges appointed eligible

judges to a total of 111 magistrate judge recall positions. The 33

bankruptcy courts had a total 159 bankruptcy judge recall appointments.

All of the district courts and all but one of the bankruptcy courts whose

requests for recalled judges had been approved during this period were

able to obtain the services of a recalled judge. In 1993, the circuit council

had approved two bankruptcy judge recall appointments for one

bankruptcy court, but only one appointment was made. Data were not

available on why the second appointment was not made. One possible

reason is that Congress had authorized two additional bankruptcy court

judgeships for this court in 1992.

The total number of recalled magistrate judge appointments by a single

district over the entire period ranged from 1 to 12. The number of district

courts with one or more recalled magistrate judges on duty at the end of

the fiscal year increased annually, from 4 in fiscal year 1990 to 16 in fiscal

year 1997. The number of recalled magistrate judges on duty at the end of

the fiscal year also grew each year (except for 1997). Data by fiscal year

and district are shown in appendix IV, table IV.1.

The total number of recalled bankruptcy judge appointments by a single

bankruptcy court over the period ranged from 1 to 9. The number of

bankruptcy courts with recalled judges on duty at the end of the fiscal year

ranged from 10 (fiscal years 1990, 1991, and 1993) to 25 (as of April 30 in

fiscal year 1998). The number of recalled bankruptcy judges on duty at the

end of the fiscal year more than doubled by the end of fiscal year 1994 (to

23) from the levels it had been in fiscal years 1990, 1991, and 1993. Since

the end of fiscal year 1994, the number of recalled bankruptcy judges has

remained relatively stable. Additional details are shown in appendix IV,

table IV.2.

Since fiscal year 1990, the number of retired magistrate and bankruptcy

judges and the number of those retired judges who were eligible for recall

has grown annually. Each fiscal year during the period covered by our

review, at least 80 percent of retired magistrate judges were eligible for

recall. In all but 2 fiscal years, 100 percent of retired bankruptcy judges

were eligible for recall. For each year covered by our data, the number of

magistrate and bankruptcy judges eligible for recall has exceeded the

number of judges actually recalled. It must be noted, however, that eligible

retired judges may be recalled only with their consent, and not all eligible

judges may be willing to accept a recall appointment. The percentage of

eligible retired magistrate judges who were recalled ranged from about 16

percent at the end of fiscal year 1992 to about 24 percent at the end of

Number of Eligible Retired

Judges Has Exceeded the

Number Who Were Recalled
B-280364

Page 9 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

fiscal year 1996 (see table 1). The percentage of eligible retired bankruptcy

judges who were recalled ranged from about 33 percent at the end of fiscal

year 1993 to about 56 percent at the end of fiscal year 1990 (see table 2).

The number of bankruptcy courts that recalled bankruptcy judges jumped

sharply in fiscal year 1994 and has remained relatively stable since then.

Number of Percentagea of

Date

Judges in

retirement status

Retired judges

eligible for recall

Eligible judges

recalled

Retired judges

eligible for recall

Retired judges

recalled

Number of

districts that

recalled judges

09-30-90 23 19 4 83 21 4

09-30-91 37 30 6 81 20 6

09-30-92 51 44 7 86 16 7

09-30-93 57 49 9 86 18 9

09-30-94 71 60 13 85 22 11

09-30-95 87 73 16 84 22 12

09-30-96 100 83 20 83 24 15

09-30-97 112 92 18 82 20 16

04-30-98 119 96 18 81 19 14 a

Rounded to nearest whole number.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Number of Percentagea of

Date

Judges in

retirement status

Retired judges

eligible for recall

Eligible judges

recalled

Retired judges

eligible for recall

Retired judges

recalled

Number of

districts that

recalled judges

09-30-90 18 18 10 100 56 10

09-30-91 22 22 10 100 46 10

09-30-92 27 27 12 100 44 11

09-30-93 35 33 11 94 33 10

09-30-94 42 42 23 100 55 21

09-30-95 47 47 24 100 51 22

09-30-96 50 50 22 100 44 21

09-30-97 55 55 22 100 40 22

04-30-98 61 60 25 98 42 25 a

Rounded to nearest whole number.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Table 1: Magistrate Judges in Retirement Status, Eligible for Recall, and Actually Recalled; and Number of Districts That

Recalled Judges, as of September 30, 1990-1997, and April 30, 1998

Table 2: Bankruptcy Judges in Retirement Status, Eligible for Recall, and Actually Recalled; and Number of Courts That

Recalled Judges, as of September 30, 1990-1997, and April 30, 1998
B-280364

Page 10 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

The majority of recalled magistrate and bankruptcy judges have served

annual (ad hoc) terms rather than extended recall terms (which are

generally 3-year appointments).12 Further, the majority of the judges who

were recalled served more than one term. As a result, the number of

recalled judge appointments exceeded the number of retired judges who

filled these appointments. The 111 recalled magistrate judge appointments

were filled by 33 separate retired magistrate judges. The 159 recalled

bankruptcy judge appointments were filled by 43 separate retired

bankruptcy judges.

Analysis of the data by fiscal year shows that a majority of recalled judges

served more than one annual appointment. For example, of the 18 retired

magistrate judges who were serving recall duty on September 30, 1997, 17

were serving on an ad hoc basis, and 13 of the 18 recalled judges had also

served in the previous year. Of the 22 retired bankruptcy judges who were

serving recall duty on the same date, 17 were serving on an ad hoc basis,

and 20 of the 22 recalled judges had also served in the previous year. (For

details by fiscal year, see app. IV, tables IV.3 and IV.4.)

District and bankruptcy courts may request a recalled judge for a variety of

reasons, such as temporarily high case filings, judgeship vacancies, or the

illness of an active judge that temporarily reduces his or her ability to carry

a full caseload. AOUSC officials and circuit executives noted that

temporarily high case filings and judgeship vacancies were the two most

common reasons for requesting recalled judges. Our analysis of AOUSC’s

data showed that some courts had judgeship vacancies and/or weighted

case filings above the national average at the same time that they had a

recalled judge. However, we found no clear pattern with regard to

judgeship vacancies or weighted case filings among those courts that used

recalled judges.

We spoke with the circuit executives or their representatives in the 12

regional judicial circuits concerning the use of recalled magistrate and

bankruptcy judges.13 Overall, these officials told us that the circuits neither

encourage nor discourage the use of recalled judges. Rather, the circuit

councils generally review each request for a recalled judge on a case-bycase basis in light of the Judicial Conference’s guidelines and regulations

on the use of recalled judges and any circuit standards. Generally the

 

12 To be eligible for an extended recall appointment, a magistrate or bankruptcy judge must be at least

age 65 and have retired under JRS including “hybrid” JRS. See app. II.

13 There is also a court of appeals for the “federal circuit,” but this circuit has no district or bankruptcy

courts.

The Majority of Recalled

Judges Have Served

Multiple Recall Terms

Reasons for Using

Recalled Judges Varied

Comments of Circuit

Executives on Recalled

Judge Appointments
B-280364

Page 11 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

circuits have no written criteria, in addition to those of the Judicial

Conference, for reviewing recalled judge requests. Two circuits had

drafted general guidelines for recalled appointments, and the First Circuit

required the requesting district to fill out an information sheet justifying its

recall request.

Documentation the circuit executives provided showed that since 1990

appointments were made for all approved requests for recalled judges,

with one exception. An appointment was not made for one approved

recalled bankruptcy judge request. The bankruptcy court whose recall

appointment was not made had requested the appointment of two recalled

judges in 1993. The circuit council approved the court’s request for both

appointments, but only one recalled judge was actually appointed. Data

were not available on why this second approved position was not filled.

One possible reason is that Congress had authorized two additional

bankruptcy judgeships for this court in 1992.

The circuit executives stated that few recalled judges are recalled for

terms of less than 1 year and that some circuits have a general policy that

appointments must be for at least 1 year. However, the officials noted that

in most cases the circuits first consider the use of active judges from

within and then outside the circuit (that is, intracircuit and intercircuit

assignments) before requesting the assistance of recalled judges. The

executives also said that when assistance from active judges is not

available, recalled judges offer experienced assistance.

Based on data provided by AOUSC, we found no clear pattern in judgeship

vacancies among the district and bankruptcy courts that used recalled

judges (see table 3). For example, of the 25 districts that recalled at least 1

magistrate judge during the period covered in our review, 10 recalled a

magistrate judge during the same period that they experienced judgeship

vacancies. Further, of the 25 districts that recalled at least 1 magistrate

judge during the period of our review, 8 experienced judgeship vacancies

but did not recall a magistrate judge during the time the vacancies existed.

Four district courts appointed recalled magistrate judges when the court

had both a judgeship vacancy and weighted case filings above the national

average.

No Clear Pattern Between

Judgeship Vacancies and

the Use of Recalled Judges
B-280364

Page 12 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges

 Date

Number of

districts that

recalled judges

Number of districts

with judgeship

vacancies

Number of courts

that recalled

judges

Number of courts

 with judgeship

vacancies

09-30-90 4 0 10 2

09-30-91 6 0 10 4

09-30-92 7 0 11 6

09-30-93 9 2 10 8

09-30-94 11 2 21 11

09-30-95 12 1 22 8

09-30-96 15 2 21 11

09-30-97 16 2 22 11

04-30-98 14 1 25 10

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

The data were similar for bankruptcy judges. For example, of the 33

districts that recalled at least 1 bankruptcy judge during the period

covered in our review, only 15 recalled a bankruptcy judge during the same

period they experienced the judgeship vacancies. Further, of the 33

districts that recalled at least 1 bankruptcy judge during the period of our

review, 22 experienced judgeship vacancies but did not recall a bankruptcy

judge during the time the vacancies existed.14 Thirteen bankruptcy courts

had bankruptcy judgeship vacancies at the same time the courts had one

or more recalled judges. Six of these courts had both a bankruptcy

judgeship vacancy and weighted case filings above the national average in

at least one fiscal year in which the court recalled a bankruptcy judge.

Based on our analysis of AOUSC’s data on recalled bankruptcy judges and

bankruptcy courts’ weighted case filings,15 we found no clear pattern of

weighted case filings among those bankruptcy courts that recalled judges

during the period of our review. While some bankruptcy courts with

comparatively high weighted case filings recalled judges, other bankruptcy

courts with similarly high weighted case filings did not. Alternatively, a

number of bankruptcy courts with comparatively low weighted case filings

used recalled bankruptcy judges on a consistent basis. Although we have

provided the district court weighted case filings in this report for

informational purposes, it is not clear, for the reasons discussed below,

 

14 These categories are not mutually exclusive. Four districts recalled a bankruptcy judge in one year

when the district had a judgeship vacancy but did not in another year that it had a judgeship vacancy.

15 Weighted case filings were not available for fiscal years 1990, 1991, and 1993 for bankruptcy courts.

Although weighted case filings for these years were available for statistical years ending June 30 and

calendar years ending December 31, we did not use these data because they would not be comparable

to the fiscal year data provided for other years.

Table 3: Number of District and

Bankruptcy Courts That Had Recalled

Judges, and the Number of Judgeship

Vacancies in These Courts, as of

September 30, 1990-1997, and April 30,

1998

Weighted Case Filings of

Courts that Recalled

Bankruptcy Judges Varied

Widely
B-280364

Page 13 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

what, if any, relationship exists between these weighted case filings and

magistrate judge workload.

The Judicial Conference has adopted weighted case filings measures for

both district and bankruptcy courts. Weighted case filings represent a

measure of the relative amount of judge time that a district or bankruptcy

court’s case filings may require. It is useful to remember that the case

weights for both district and bankruptcy courts represent averages, and

the actual amount of judge time required for any specific mix of cases may

vary from court to court. In assessing district judge or bankruptcy judge

workload, the Judicial Conference uses weighted case filings per

authorized judgeship. Authorized judgeships are the number of district or

bankruptcy judgeships authorized by statute. To determine a bankruptcy

or district court’s weighted case filings per authorized judgeship, the

court’s total weighted filings are divided by its number of authorized

judgeships. For example, a district with 4,000 weighted filings and 10

authorized judgeships would have 400 weighted filings per authorized

judgeship.

Bankruptcy court weighted case filings were developed to measure the

workload of bankruptcy judges. The average weighted case filings for

those bankruptcy courts that recalled bankruptcy judges varied among the

districts each year and across the years covered by our review. For

example, the weighted case filings of courts that recalled bankruptcy

judges ranged from 619 to 2,144 per bankruptcy court judgeship in fiscal

year 1992 and from 639 to 2,321 in fiscal year 1997 (see table 4). The

average among all 90 bankruptcy courts was 1,437 in 1992 and 1,436 in

1997. (See app. V, table V.2, for details on weighted case filings, by

bankruptcy district, for each fiscal year.)

Range of weighted case filings

Fiscal yeara

Number of districts

recalling judges Low district High district National average

1992 11 619 2,144 1,437

1994 21 507 2,084 1,227

1995 22 536 1,843 1,149

1996 21 544 1,729 1,272

1997 22 639 2,321 1,436

a

Weighted case filings not available for fiscal years 1990, 1991, and 1993.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Bankruptcy courts’ weighted

case filings varied widely

Table 4: Range of Weighted Case

Filings for Those Bankruptcy Courts

That Recalled Judges Compared to

National Average, Fiscal Years 1992 and

1994-1997
B-280364

Page 14 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

The district court case weights measure the workload of district court

judges, not magistrate judges. The Conference has not adopted a weighted

workload measure for magistrate judges. To the extent that the work of

magistrate judges reduced the time that district judges must spend on

specific types of cases, the reduction in district judge time would be

reflected in the district court case weights for those types of cases. Some

types of cases, such as criminal misdemeanors, which are commonly

decided by magistrate judges, are not reflected in the district court case

weights at all.

The average weighted case filings for those districts that recalled

magistrate judges varied among the districts each year and across the

years covered by our review. For information purposes, the high and low

ranges, plus the national average weighted case filings are shown in table

5. (See app. V, table V.1, for details on weighted case filings, by district, for

each fiscal year. However, it is not clear what use these data may have in

assessing magistrate judge workload.

Range of weighted case filings

Fiscal year

Number of districts

recalling judges Low district High district National average

1990 4 412 695 427

1991 6 338 507 386

1992 7 356 506 412

1993 9 382 522 419

1994 11 377 560 419

1995 12 264 585 448

1996 15 298 651 472

1997 16 259 1,649 519

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Although the cost of using a recalled judge is less than the cost of a fulltime active magistrate or bankruptcy judge, the actual cost of any

particular recall appointment depends upon a number of variables. These

include (1) whether the recalled judge retired at full or partial salary, (2)

the pension plan under which the judge retired, (3) the staff support

provided to the judge, and (4) whether the judge is required to travel from

his or her home to the court in which the recall service is performed.

Judges who retired at full salary are not entitled to additional pay for recall

service. Judges who retired at less than full salary are entitled to a salary

(or daily wage for those performing part-time service) that equals the

difference between their pensions and the salary of an active, full-time

judge. (See app. II for more details.) Judges who retired under the Civil

Service Retirement System (CSRS) or the Federal Employee Retirement

District court weighted case

filings not designed to measure

magistrate judge workload

Table 5: Range of Weighted Case

Filings for Those Districts That Recalled

Magistrate Judges Compared to

National Average, Fiscal Years 1990-

1997

A Number of Variables

Affect Actual Cost

Savings Associated

with Recalled Judges
B-280364

Page 15 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

System (FERS) may be entitled to a supplemental annuity while on recall

duty. Recalled judges who have limited support staff, such as a secretary

only, cost less than those recalled judges receiving the same pension who

have the same support staff as a full-time active judge. Recalled judges are

entitled to the same travel and per diem expenses as active judges. Thus, if

a judge must travel from his or her home to the district to which he or she

was recalled, the district that recalled the judge may incur travel and per

diem expenses for his or her services.

The majority of magistrate judges who were eligible for recall each year

had retired at less than full salary.16 For every fiscal year from 1990 through

1996, the number of magistrate judges who had retired at less than full

salary was at least double the number of judges who had retired at full

salary (see app. IV, table IV.5). This was not true of bankruptcy judges.

Beginning in fiscal year 1993, a majority of eligible, retired bankruptcy

judges had retired at full salary; and, beginning in fiscal year 1994, a

majority of recalled bankruptcy judges had retired at full salary (see app.

IV, table IV.6).

Unlike their colleagues who retired at full salary, magistrate and

bankruptcy judges whose pensions are less than the full salary of the office

from which they retired have a financial incentive to serve on recall duty

because they would be paid the difference between the amount of their

pensions and the current salary of an active magistrate or bankruptcy

judge. Consequently, it is generally less expensive for the circuit councils

and district courts to recall magistrate or bankruptcy judges who had

retired at full salary than to recall magistrate or bankruptcy judges who

had retired at less than full salary. From fiscal years 1991 through 1997, the

percentage of eligible magistrate judges who had retired on full salary and

were recalled ranged from 23 percent (1993) to 44 percent (1996). During

this same period, no more than 19 percent (in 1991) of eligible magistrate

judges who retired at less than full salary were recalled (see app. IV, table

IV.5). The picture for bankruptcy judges is mixed. From fiscal years 1991

through 1994, bankruptcy judges who retired at less than full salary were

more likely to be recalled than those who had retired at full salary.

Beginning in fiscal year 1995, judges who retired at full salary have been

more likely to be recalled. (See app. IV, table IV.6) This may reflect the fact

that, beginning in 1994, a majority of eligible retired bankruptcy judges had

retired at full salary.

 

16 Only judges who have qualified for retirement under JRS may retire at full salary.

Recalled Magistrate Judges

Generally Retired at Less

Than Full Salary;

Bankruptcy Judge Data

Mixed
B-280364

Page 16 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

Magistrate and bankruptcy judges who retired under either CSRS or FERS

may qualify for an enhanced retirement pension as a result of recall

service. Such retired judges with at least 1 but less than 5 years of full-time

continuous recall service may receive a supplemental annuity. Judges with

5 or more years of continuous full-time recall service may have their

pensions recalculated based on a new “average salary.” Of the 33 separate

magistrate judges who were recalled during the period of our review, 9 (27

percent) had retired under CSRS or FERS, and 1 had served 5 or more

years of recall service. Of the 43 separate bankruptcy judges who were

recalled, 12 (28 percent) retired under CSRS or FERS and 8 had served 5 or

more years of recall service.

AOUSC maintains and annually updates data on the first-year and annual

recurring costs of various types of judgeships, including full-time

magistrate and bankruptcy judgeships. AOUSC also maintains and

annually updates the average annual estimated costs of recalled magistrate

and bankruptcy judges. AOUSC’s cost data includes the salaries and

benefits of the judges and any support staff, plus the cost of space,

equipment, and facilities to support the judge.

The AOUSC cost estimates for fiscal year 1999 show that the recurring

annual costs of a full-time magistrate judge is $601,832 and the cost of a

full-time bankruptcy judge is $575,297. AOUSC estimated that it would cost

$253,477 annually to recall a retired magistrate judge to full-time service,

with an annual salary of $30,728 per year, and provide the recalled judge

with a full support staff—law clerk, secretary, courtroom deputy, and

electronic court recorder. Comparable estimated costs for a recalled

bankruptcy judge were $241,402.

However, according to AOUSC, only some recalled judges have a full

personal staff. Many only have a secretary or law clerk. Using AOUSC’s

fiscal year 1999 data, we estimated it would cost about $87,000 annually to

recall to full-time service a magistrate judge who retired at full salary and

provide him or her with a secretary, but no other personal staff, while on

recall service. This total includes the estimated cost of the secretary’s

fringe benefits. The comparable estimated cost for a recalled bankruptcy

judge is about $93,000.

The actual cost of a recalled judge would depend upon the amount of the

salary earned on recall service, the personal staff provided to support the

recalled judge, and any travel costs that may be incurred while on recall

service.

Range of the Estimated

Annual Recurring Costs of

Recalled Magistrate and

Bankruptcy Judges
B-280364

Page 17 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

On December 16, 1998, AOUSC provided written comments on a draft of

this report. AOUSC noted that although our report included no findings or

conclusions, an uninformed audience might read into the report an

implication that the judiciary had not tapped a resource available to it

when in fact there are inherent limitations on the use of recalled judges.

AOUSC noted that “[t]here are good reasons why recalled judges are not a

greater or more predictable resource than they already are, not the least of

which is the fact that they must be at least 65 years of age to retire under

the Judicial Retirement System.”

Our report is intended to provide information and analysis, not explicit or

implied conclusions or recommendations. Our report shows that a

majority of retired, eligible bankruptcy judges as of April 30, 1998, had

retired under JRS. However, as of the same date a majority of retired,

eligible magistrate judges had retired under CSRS or FERS, and such

judges did not have to be 65 years of age to retire. We did not obtain

information on the age of the judges who were eligible for recall. AOUSC

also provided technical changes to the report that we incorporated as

appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairmen and Ranking Minority

Members of the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary; the

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on

Administrative Oversight and the Courts, Senate Committee on the

Judiciary; the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the

Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law and Subcommittee

on Courts and Intellectual Property, House Committee on the Judiciary;

the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the Subcommittee on

Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies, House and

Senate Committees on Appropriations; Director, AOUSC; and the Chief

Agency Comments and

Our Evaluation
B-280364

Page 18 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

Judge of each of the 12 federal regional circuit courts of appeals. We will

provide copies to other interested parties upon request.

Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VII. If you have any

questions about this report, please call me on (202) 512-8777.

Sincerely yours,

Richard M. Stana

Associate Director

Administration of Justice Issues
Page 19 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges
Page 20 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

Contents

1 Letter

24

Process for Recalling Magistrate Judges 25

Process for Recalling Bankruptcy Judges 27

Appendix I

The Process For

Recalling Retired

Magistrate and

Bankruptcy Judges

29

Eligibility 29

Compensation 30

Support Services 31

Appendix II

Recall Eligibility,

Compensation, and

Available Staff Support

for Recalled Magistrate

and Bankruptcy

Judges

32

Limitations of Data on Recall Appointments 33

Data Analysis 34

Appendix III

Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Appendix IV 36

Data on Recalled

Magistrate and

Bankruptcy Judges, by

District and Fiscal

Year
Contents

Page 21 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

Appendix V

Weighted Case Filings

for Courts that

Recalled Magistrate or

Bankruptcy Judges,

Fiscal Years 1990 to

1997

41

Appendix VI 43

Comments From

AOUSC

Appendix VII 44

Major Contributors to

This Report

Table 1: Magistrate Judges in Retirement Status, Eligible

for Recall, and Actually Recalled; and Number of

Districts That Recalled Judges, as of September 30,

1990-1997, and April 30, 1998

9

Table 2: Bankruptcy Judges in Retirement Status, Eligible

for Recall, and Actually Recalled; and Number of

Courts That Recalled Judges, as of September 30, 1990-

1997, and April 30, 1998

9

Table 3: Number of District and Bankruptcy Courts That

Had Recalled Judges, and the Number of Judgeship

Vacancies in These Courts, as of September 30, 1990-

1997, and April 30, 1998

12

Table 4: Range of Weighted Case Filings for Those

Bankruptcy Courts That Recalled Judges Compared to

National Average, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1994-1997

13

Tables

Table 5: Range of Weighted Case Filings for Those

Districts That Recalled Magistrate Judges Compared to

National Average, Fiscal Years 1990-1997

14
Contents

Page 22 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

Table IV.1: Listing of the Number of Recalled Magistrate

Judge Appointments, by District and by Fiscal Year, as

of September 30, 1990-1997, and as of April 30, 1998, in

Circuit Order

36

Table IV.2: Listing of the Number of Recalled Bankruptcy

Judge Appointments, by District and Fiscal Year, as of

September 30, 1990-1997, and as of April 30, 1998, in

Circuit Order

37

Table IV.3: Number of Retired Magistrate Judges Eligible

for Recall, Number of Eligible Judges Recalled by Type

of Recall, and Number of Recalled Judges Who Served

in Previous Years, as of September 30, 1990-1997, and

as of April 30, 1998

38

Table IV.4: Number of Retired Bankruptcy Judges

Eligible for Recall, Number of Eligible Judges Recalled

by Type of Recall, and Number of Recalled Judges Who

Served in Previous Years, as of September 30, 1990-

1997, and as of April 30, 1998

39

Table IV.5: Number and Percentage of Retired Magistrate

Judges Eligible for Recall and Who Were Recalled, by

Pension Status, as of September 30, 1990-1997, and as

of April 30, 1998

39

Table IV.6: Number and Percentage of Retired

Bankruptcy Judges Eligible for Recall and Who Were

Recalled, by Pension Status, as of September 30, 1990-

1997, and as of April 30, 1998

40

Table V.1: District Court Weighted Case Filings, in

Districts that Recalled at Least One Magistrate Judge,

Fiscal Years 1990-1997

41

Table V.2: Weighted Case Filings in Bankruptcy Courts

that Recalled at Least One Judge, Fiscal Years 1992 and

1994-1997

42

Figure 1: Twenty Five District Courts, by Circuit, That

Had a Recalled Magistrate Judge on Duty at the End of

One or More Fiscal Years, 1990-1997, or as of April 30

1998

6

Figure 2: Thirty-Three Bankruptcy Courts, by Circuit,

That Had a Recalled Bankruptcy Judge on Duty at the

End of One or More Fiscal Years, 1990-1997, or as of

April 30, 1998

7

Figures
Contents

Page 23 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

Abbreviations

AOUSC Administrative Office of the United States Courts

CSRS Civil Service Retirement System

FERS Federal Employees Retirement System

JRS Judicial Retirement System

OPM Office of Personnel Management

TSP Thrift Savings Plan
Appendix I

The Process For Recalling Retired Magistrate

and Bankruptcy Judges

Page 24 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

The process of identifying the need for the services of recalled magistrate

and bankruptcy judges is shared by the district or bankruptcy court, the

circuit judicial council of the circuit in which the district or bankruptcy

court is located, and, in some instances, the Judicial Conference

Committee on the Administration of the Magistrate Judges System or the

Judicial Conference Committee on the Administration of the Bankruptcy

System. Briefly, the formal process includes three basic steps: (1) the

district or bankruptcy court initiates the request for a recalled judge, (2)

the circuit judicial council reviews and approves or denies the request, and

(3) when there is a request for an “intercircuit” recall (the recall of a judge

outside of the circuit where the judge served on active status), the

Magistrate Judges Committee or the Bankruptcy Committee of the Judicial

Conference must approve the appointment. The Administrative Office of

the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) provides informal support by assisting courts in

locating retired magistrate and bankruptcy judges who are able and willing

to serve on a recalled basis.

Retired magistrate and bankruptcy judges may be recalled only with their

consent and may be recalled for full- or part-time appointments.1

 The

decision to seek the appointment of a recalled judge rests with the district

or bankruptcy court that determines it needs the services of a recalled

judge. The chief judge of the district or bankruptcy court requests a

recalled judge, specifying whether the requested recall would be full or

part time, the period of time for which the appointment is requested, and

whether staff and other expenditures are required. The circuit judicial

council reviews the district court or bankruptcy court’s request and may

approve, modify, or deny the request. If the circuit judicial council

approves the request, the council is to specify whether the recalled judge

will serve on a full- or part-time basis. Whether full or part time, the recall

may be for up to 1 year and a day (ad hoc recall) or, in the case of

magistrate judges, more than 1 year but not in excess of 3 years (extended

service recall). Extended service recalls of retired bankruptcy judges are

for a fixed 3-year period. Recall terms are renewable at the request of the

district or bankruptcy court and upon approval of the circuit judicial

council. Magistrate and bankruptcy judges who retired under the Civil

Service Retirement System (CSRS) or the Federal Employee Retirement

System (FERS) are not eligible for extended recall.

AOUSC’s role in the recall of retired magistrate and bankruptcy judges is

principally one of assistance to local courts by helping them locate retired

 

1

 Retired magistrate and bankruptcy judges who have retired under JRS and elect to practice law after

retirement are not eligible to be recalled.
Appendix I

The Process For Recalling Retired Magistrate and Bankruptcy Judges

Page 25 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

magistrate or bankruptcy judges who are willing to serve on a recalled

basis. AOUSC assists in locating an eligible judge willing to serve who is as

close as possible, geographically, to the district or bankruptcy court in

which the recalled judge would serve. It is important to note that an

eligible judge may be generally willing to serve on recalled status but may

be unwilling to accept a specific recalled judge assignment. For example, a

judge who retired from a district in the midwest and subsequently moved

to Florida for retirement may be willing to be recalled only in Florida or an

adjacent state.

Prior to September 1996, the court or circuit council seeking a recalled

judge had to check with AOUSC regarding the availability of funds for the

recalled judge and any support staff that he or she may be provided.

However, in September 1996, the Judicial Conference amended the recall

regulations eliminating the requirement of funding approval by AOUSC

prior to judicial council authorization of a recalled judge and any support

staff. It is now the circuit council’s responsibility to determine the need for

a recalled magistrate or bankruptcy judge and also the support staff, if any,

who will be available to the recalled judge. The circuit council may decide

to provide the recalled judge no separate support staff (but rely on staff

already in the court), or provide the judge with his or her own secretary,

law clerk, or both.

Once the local district court determines the need to request a recalled

magistrate judge, it may call the Magistrate Judges Division of the Office of

Judges Programs in AOUSC to notify it of the need for a full- or part-time

recalled judge, including any specific requirements for the position. For

example, the recall duties may be limited to criminal pretrial proceedings 2

or 3 days a week or month, or the court may need a full-time recalled

magistrate judge to handle a full range of duties. In limited circumstances,

the district court may seek a full-time recalled magistrate judge in lieu of

filling a magistrate judge vacancy. In these circumstances, the requesting

district court has the discretion of whether to request that a vacancy be

filled with a new judge or to request the appointment of a recalled judge

instead—at least for a period of time.

Using its list of eligible retired magistrate judges, the Magistrate Judges

Division would generally call those eligible judges residing in or near the

requesting district, moving out to other areas as needed. The goal is to

identify an eligible judge who is willing to serve in the position and who is

geographically as close as possible to the requesting district. This is not

always possible, however. For example, the district of New Jersey

requested a recalled magistrate judge to assist the district for several days

Process for Recalling

Magistrate Judges
Appendix I

The Process For Recalling Retired Magistrate and Bankruptcy Judges

Page 26 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

a week. AOUSC’s search extended outward from New Jersey to Iowa,

where it found a judge willing to serve that court. This recall appointment

required the approval of the Magistrate Judges Committee because it

involved an intercircuit assignment. The recalled judge had retired from

the eighth circuit (which includes Iowa) and was recalled to a position in

the third circuit (which includes New Jersey).

The Magistrate Judges Division’s eligibility list consists of all retired

magistrate judges who have not declared themselves ineligible. To assess

the level of interest in being recalled and obtain a more accurate eligibility

list, in February 1997, the Magistrate Judges Division began distributing

questionnaires to all retiring magistrate judges. The Division has not

formally surveyed retired magistrate judges who retired prior to February

1997.

The actual process of obtaining a recalled magistrate judge varies, as

follows:

• The requesting district court may provide to AOUSC the names of retired

magistrates judges whom the district believes are eligible and willing to

serve on recall duty and either directly ask these retired judges if they are

willing to serve or ask AOUSC to call these retired judges to determine if

they are willing to serve.

• The requesting court may ask AOUSC to contact someone from AOUSC’s

eligibility list for recall duty.

• By prior arrangement, and with the approval of the circuit council, a

magistrate judge may transition directly from active to recall status, (i.e.,

retire on Friday and return as a recalled judge on the following Monday).

According to AOUSC, when a court asks for one or more additional

magistrate judge positions, AOUSC does a formal survey to review the

district’s workload and its use of magistrate judges. AOUSC’s policy for

conducting this survey is that the survey team is to assess the possible use

of recalled judges in lieu of an additional position. For those districts that

do not request additional magistrate judge positions, the Judicial

Conference mandates a review every 4 to 5 years of the use of magistrate

judges and whether the use of recalled judges is a reasonable option. The

results are to be reported to the Magistrate Judges Committee, which

reviews all positions and recommends to the Judicial Conference whether

the new positions should be authorized and whether existing positions

should be continued.
Appendix I

The Process For Recalling Retired Magistrate and Bankruptcy Judges

Page 27 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

The process for recalling bankruptcy judges is generally similar to that

used for recalling magistrate judges. One difference is that it is the

responsibility of the requesting bankruptcy court to formally advise the

Bankruptcy Judges Division of the Office of Judges Programs in AOUSC

that the court is requesting the services of a recall judge. The circuit

council would be more likely than AOUSC to know which retired

bankruptcy judges may be available and willing to be recalled within the

circuit (especially for intracircuit service). Thus, it is not unusual for the

names of retired bankruptcy judges available for service to accompany the

formal notice to AOUSC.

The Bankruptcy Judges Division’s eligibility list contains all retired judges

who have not declared themselves ineligible. Ineligible retired bankruptcy

judges include those who have notified AOUSC that they plan to practice

law in retirement. To obtain a more accurate eligibility list and assess

retiring judges’ interest in being recalled, in April 1998, the Division began

to request information from all retiring bankruptcy judges that included a

judge’s interest in serving in a recall position. AOUSC has not gathered

similar information on a systematic basis from bankruptcy judges who

retired prior to April 1998.

When a judgeship vacancy occurs in a bankruptcy court, the Bankruptcy

Judges Division, upon request, is to make available to that court a list of

retired bankruptcy judges available for recall in the circuit and to

encourage the court to use recalled judges. If a court requests help in

obtaining a recall candidate, the Division is to call judges on its eligibility

list, using the same criteria as the Magistrate Judges Division (geographic

proximity) to find a candidate.

The Judicial Conference requires the Bankruptcy Judges Division to

conduct surveys in even numbered years to assess the continued need for

existing authorized bankruptcy judgeship positions. The principal criteria

for assessing continued judgeship needs is the weighted case filings per

judgeship in the district. The biennial bankruptcy judgeship assessment

process to determine the need for additional judgeships includes surveys

and on-site reviews in which a team (with a bankruptcy judge of a different

district as a member) visits the bankruptcy court that has requested an

additional judgeship(s).2

 One goal of the team is to alert the bankruptcy

court to the option of using recall judges in lieu of requesting additional

 2

 For a more detailed explanation of the Judicial Conference’s process for assessing bankruptcy

judgeship needs, see Federal Judiciary: Bankruptcy Judgeship Requests, 1993-1997 (GAO/T-GGD-97-

183, Sept. 22, 1997).

Process for Recalling

Bankruptcy Judges
Appendix I

The Process For Recalling Retired Magistrate and Bankruptcy Judges

Page 28 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

judgeship positions. As part of its site visit, the team is to discuss the recall

option, its benefits, and identify the retired judges available for recall.
Appendix II

Recall Eligibility, Compensation, and

Available Staff Support for Recalled

Magistrate and Bankruptcy Judges

Page 29 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

Eligibility for recall service, the compensation paid to recalled judges, and

the staff support available to recalled judges are governed by statute and

Judicial Conference policy and regulations.

Generally, magistrate judges and bankruptcy judges who have retired from

the bench are eligible for recall service. A retired bankruptcy or magistrate

judge may be recalled to service in accordance with regulations

promulgated by the Judicial Conference under 28 U.S.C. §§ 155 (b) and 636

(h), respectively. Under the Conference’s regulations, a retired magistrate

or bankruptcy judge may be recalled to “ad hoc” recall service for

renewable periods of 1 year and 1 day, or for “extended recall” service for

renewable 3-year periods. There is no limit to the number of renewals that

may be approved. Any judge who is receiving an annuity is eligible for “ad

hoc” recall service. Judges may qualify for an annuity under several

retirement systems—CSRS; FERS; the Judicial Retirement System (JRS),

available only to full-time judges;1

 or a “hybrid” version of JRS in which a

judge receives a pension paid from both JRS and CSRS or FERS.2

 However,

only magistrate and bankruptcy judges who have retired on full salary

under “straight” or “hybrid” JRS and are at least 65 years of age are eligible

for “extended recall.”

A circuit judicial council may recall a retired magistrate or bankruptcy

judge with the judge’s consent, but recall is subject to the availability of

funds to pay any associated expenses, such as per diem and travel

expenses. A retired judge may serve in any district upon recall. The court

to which the judge is recalled determines the location and duration of the

recalled judge’s service and may impose limitations on the scope of service

provided on recall. The term of recall may be for full- or part-time service

and may be modified or terminated at any time by the judicial council of

the circuit in which the judge is recalled.

A judge who retires under JRS and who practices law after retirement is

not eligible for recall service. Nor are such retired judges eligible for any

annual cost-of-living adjustments in their JRS annuity subsequent to

notifying AOUSC of their intent to practice law. Moreover, a judge who

retires under JRS and fails to notify AOUSC prior to engaging in the

practice of law forfeits his or her annuity. However, magistrate judges who

did not retire under JRS and who practiced law after retirement may be

recalled to part-time service and may continue to practice law while in

 1

All full-time magistrate and bankruptcy judges are eligible to elect coverage under JRS at any time

prior to 30 days before leaving office.

2

The “hybrid” JRS annuity is available only to judges in office on November 15, 1988.

Eligibility
Appendix II

Recall Eligibility, Compensation, and Available Staff Support for Recalled Magistrate and

Bankruptcy Judges

Page 30 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

recall service. Magistrate judges may not practice law while serving fulltime recall service.

Retired magistrate and bankruptcy judges who are recalled to full-time

judicial duties may receive pay equal to the difference between the amount

of their pensions and the salary of a full-time magistrate or bankruptcy

judge. Retired judges who are recalled to part-time service are paid a daily

wage. For each day of service, the judge would receive the daily salary of

the office for that day less the portion of the judge’s annuity allocable to

that day.

A retired judge who is recalled to full-time service is entitled to the salary

of the office to which he or she is recalled less the annuity allocable to the

period of recall service. For example, a bankruptcy judge who retired with

an annuity equal to 100 percent of the salary of the office to which he or

she was recalled would receive no additional compensation. However, a

bankruptcy judge who retired on an $80,000 annuity who is recalled to fulltime service would receive “wages” of $45,764—the difference between the

$80,000 annuity and the $125,764 salary of a full-time bankruptcy judge.

A retired judge may also be recalled on a less than full-time basis, referred

to as “when actually employed.” In such cases, the recalled judge’s salary

is computed on a daily basis. For each day of service, the judge would

receive the daily salary of the office for that day less the portion of the

judge’s annuity allocable to that day. For example, if the annual salary of

the office were $123,000, the daily salary rate would be about $473

($123,000 divided by 260 days—the number of days in a standard work

year). If the recalled judge were receiving an annuity of $80,000, the daily

proportion of the annuity would be about $222 ($80,000/360 days—the

number of days using 12, 30-day calendar months). Thus, the judge would

receive about $251 per day for each day of recall service ($473 - $222).

Recall service may not be credited and used to increase the amount of a

judge’s retirement annuity under JRS. However, a recalled judge who is

receiving a retirement annuity under CSRS or FERS may earn an increased

annuity as a result of recall service.

For continuous recall service equal to at least 1 year but less than 5 years

of full-time service, the judge is entitled to a supplemental annuity equal to

2.5 percent (CSRS) or 1 percent (FERS) of the judge’s basic pay averaged

during the recall period. For recall service of 5 or more years of

continuous full-time service, the judge may elect this supplemental annuity

or have the total CSRS or FERS annuity recalculated based on a new

Compensation

Effect of Recall Service on

A Judge’s Pension
Appendix II

Recall Eligibility, Compensation, and Available Staff Support for Recalled Magistrate and

Bankruptcy Judges

Page 31 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

“average salary.” For example, a retired judge who is paid a CSRS annuity

of $50,000 based on 20 years service and a high-3 average salary of

$100,000 (20 years x 2.5 percent x $100,000) and who is recalled full time to

a position paying $123,000 annually, would be entitled to a recomputed

annuity of $76,875 after 5 years of recall service (25 years x 2.5 percent x

$123,000). However, a recalled judge must contribute to CSRS or FERS in

order to receive a supplemental or recomputed annuity. Judges who have

retired under CSRS may contribute up to 5 percent of their wages to the

Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) during their term of recall service. Judges who

retired under FERS, or those who retired under CSRS, but elect FERS

during their period of recall service, may, within certain limitations,

contribute up to 10 percent of their wages and receive government

contributions. According to AOUSC, judges who retired under JRS are not

eligible to contribute to TSP while on recall.

A recalled judge is entitled to the services of a secretary and a law clerk (1)

on a showing of need, (2) with the approval of the judicial council, and (3)

subject to the availability of appropriated funds. A recalled judge is also

entitled to travel and per diem expenses in the same manner as an active

judge.

Support Services
Appendix III

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 32 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

Our objectives were to determine for the period October 1, 1989, through

April 30, 1998, (1) whether the demand for recalled magistrate and

bankruptcy judges has exceeded the number of judges available to serve in

recalled positions, (2) whether the courts that recalled magistrate and

bankruptcy judges had judgeship vacancies or higher than average

weighted case filings, and (3) the approximate 1-year cost savings

associated with using a recalled judge rather than filling a full-time

magistrate or bankruptcy judgeship position.

To meet these objectives, we requested and AOUSC provided data as of

September 30 for each fiscal year from 1990 through 1997, and as of April

30 for fiscal year 1998 on (1) the number of retired judges eligible for

recalled service, (2) the number of recalled positions filled by magistrate

and bankruptcy judges who had retired on full or partial salary, (3) the

number of retired magistrate and bankruptcy judges who filled these

positions, and (4) the judgeship vacancies and weighted case filings of

those courts that used recalled judges. Specifically, AOUSC provided data

as of September 30, 1990 to 1997 and as of April 30, 1998 on the

• number of judges in retirement status;

• number of judges who had retired each year under JRS, CSRS, or FERS;

• number of judges who retired each year with a pension equal to full salary;

• number of judges who retired each year with a pension that was less than

full salary;

• number of judges who were eligible for recall each year;

• number of judges in recall status at the end of each fiscal year;

• number and duration of magistrate and bankruptcy judgeship

appointments each year and the dates of those appointments;

• weighted case filings per authorized district judgeship in district courts for

each fiscal year 1990 through 1997;
Appendix III

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 33 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

• weighted case filings per authorized bankruptcy judgeship in bankruptcy

courts for fiscal years 1992 and 1994 through 1997 (fiscal year data for

1990, 1991, and 1993 were not available);1

• number of vacancies each year in those courts that recalled magistrate or

bankruptcy judges, including the dates those vacancies occurred and were

filled; and,

• the estimated fiscal year 1999 costs of creating and maintaining a new fulltime magistrate or bankruptcy judgeship, including salaries, benefits,

support staff, and space and facilities.

AOUSC’s data on the number of judges in retirement status each year and

the number of judges who were eligible for recall each year were

cumulative. Thus, for example, the fiscal year 1997 data on retired

magistrate judges included all judges in retirement status as of September

30, 1997, whether the judges had retired in fiscal year 1997 or a previous

year. All other data AOUSC provided were not cumulative. For example,

the data on the number of judges who retired in fiscal year 1997 under JRS

included only the judges who retired that year, not those judges who had

retired under JRS in previous years.

To determine the net number of retired magistrate and bankruptcy judges

at the end of each fiscal year, we obtained data from AOUSC and the

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on the dates of death of retired

judges who died during the period October 1, 1989, through April 30, 1998.

AOUSC officials said that AOUSC does not maintain post-retirement data

on magistrate and bankruptcy judges who retired under one of the two

principal civil service retirement systems—CSRS or FERS. For judges who

retired under one of these retirement systems, OPM provided data on the

dates of death.

The data AOUSC provided on recall appointments included judges whose

recall appointments were in effect as of September 30 of each fiscal year

from 1990 through 1997 and as of April 30, 1998, for fiscal year 1998.

Consequently, for fiscal years 1990 through 1997, the data AOUSC

 

1

 Weighted case filings were not available for fiscal years 1990, 1991, and 1993 for bankruptcy courts.

Although weighted case filings for these years were available for statistical years ending June 30 and

calendar years ending December 31, we did not use these data because they would not be comparable

to the fiscal year data provided for other years.

Limitations of Data on

Recall Appointments
Appendix III

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 34 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

provided did not include appointments made on or after October 1 of each

fiscal year that expired prior to September 30 of each fiscal year. Nor did it

include any appointments made on or after October 1, 1997, that expired

prior to April 30, 1998. AOUSC officials said that they believed the number

of appointments that were not included in our data were relatively few,

and our interviews with the 12 Circuit Executives also indicated that

during the period of our review there were few recall appointments of less

than 1 year.

From the data provided by AOUSC and OPM, we determined (1) the

percentage of retired judges whom AOUSC data indicated were eligible for

recall each year; (2) the number who were actually on recall duty at the

end of each fiscal year during 1990 through 1997 and as of April 30, 1998;

(3) the districts to which they were recalled; (4) the number who were

reappointed to their recall positions each year; (5) the number of recalled

judges who did and did not retire on full salary; (6) the weighted case

filings of the districts who used recalled judges each fiscal year (for those

years where data were available); (7) whether the districts who recalled

judges had one or more judgeship vacancies during the period of recall

service; and (8) the approximate cost savings of using a recalled judge

rather than filling a vacant full-time magistrate or bankruptcy judgeship

position.

We reviewed the data provided by AOUSC for internal consistency by

choosing a judgmental sample of AOUSC’s data on retired and recalled

judges, tracing the data back to source documents, and verifying that the

data AOUSC provided matched the data on the source documents. Our

sample included retired and recalled magistrate and bankruptcy judges

from several different years and geographically diverse districts.

The Circuit Councils review and must approve requests for recalled judges.

We interviewed the Circuit Executive in each of the 12 regional circuits

regarding (1) the reasons why some district and bankruptcy courts

requested recalled judges and others within the circuit did not; (2) what

incentives and disincentives there may be for district and bankruptcy

courts to use recalled judges and for retired judges to serve on recall duty;

and (3) information on alternatives to recalled judges, such as the use of

visiting judges on intracircuit or intercircuit assignments. We summarized

the results of these interviews to identify common practices and

differences among the circuits.

We obtained information on the policies for determining retired judges’

eligibility for service and for recalling retired magistrate or bankruptcy

Data Analysis
Appendix III

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 35 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

judges from the AOUSC publication, Retirement Benefits for Bankruptcy

Judges and Magistrate Judges (1995 edition), and the semiannual minutes

of the Judicial Conference and its Committees on (1) the Administration of

the Magistrate Judges System and (2) the Administration of the

Bankruptcy System for calendar years 1990 through 1997.

We used AOUSC data on the salary and benefits of full-time magistrate and

bankruptcy judges, the salary and benefits of their support staff (law clerk,

secretary, courtroom deputy, electronic court recorder), and the cost of

space and equipment for new magistrate and bankruptcy judges, to

estimate the comparative costs of using a recalled judge instead of adding

a new judge. For recalled judges without a full support staff, we assumed

the recalled judges had a full-time secretary, but no other staff, during the

period of recall service. For the cost of the recalled judges’ salary, we used

AOUSC’s average estimated salary for recalled judges.
Appendix IV

Data on Recalled Magistrate and Bankruptcy

Judges, by District and Fiscal Year

Page 36 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

This appendix contains data on the number of recalled magistrate and

bankruptcy judge positions filled by districts as of September 30, 1990,

through 1997 and as of April 30, 1998, (tables IV.1 and IV.2). Tables IV.3

and IV.4 show the number of retired magistrate and bankruptcy judges

who were recalled for ad hoc recall and extended recalled service each

year. Tables IV.5 and IV.6 contain data on the pension status of the judges

eligible for recall and those eligible judges who were recalled each year

during the period of our review.

Circuit/

District 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Total

D.C.

D.C. 1 1 2

First

RI 1 1 1 1 4

Second

NY-N 1 1 1 3

NY-W 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7

Third

PA-E 1 2 2 2 2 9

NJ 1 1

Fourth

SC 1 1 1 3

Fifth

MS-N 1 1

TX-S 1 1 1 1 4

Sixth

MI-E 1 1 1 1 2 2 8

OH-N 1 1

OH-S 2 2

Seventh

IL-C 1 1 2

Eighth

MN 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 9

MO-E 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

NE 1 1 2

Ninth

CA-C 1 1

CA-E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7

CA-N 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 12

CA-S 1 1

OR 1 2 2 2 1 1 9

WA-E 1 1 2

Tenth

NM 1 1 1 1 4

Eleventh

FL-S 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8

GA-N 3 3

Table IV.1: Listing of the Number of

Recalled Magistrate Judge

Appointments, by District and by Fiscal

Year, as of September 30, 1990-1997,

and as of April 30, 1998, in Circuit Order
Appendix IV

Data on Recalled Magistrate and Bankruptcy Judges, by District and Fiscal Year

Page 37 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

Circuit/

District 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Total

Total 4 6 7 9 13 16 20 18 18 111

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Circuit/

District 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Total

Second

CT 1 1

NY-E 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

NY-S 1 1 1 1 4

VT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9

Third

PA-W 1 1111 5

Fourth

NC-M 1 1 1 1 1 5

NC-W 1 1 1 1 1 5

VA-E 1 1111 5

Fifth

LA-E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7

TX-E 1 1 2

TX-S 1 1

Sixth

KY-E 1 1 1 1 4

MI-E 1 1

MI-W 1 1 1 3

OH-N 2 3 2 1 1 9

OH-S 1 1 1 1 1 5

TN-E 1 1 1 1 1 5

Seventh

IL-C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9

IL-N 1 1 1 1 4

IN-N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9

WI-E 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

Eighth

MN 1 1 1 1 1 5

Ninth

CA-C 1 1 2 2 1 1 8

CA-E 1 1 2

CA-N 1 1 1 1 1 5

HI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7

NV 1 1 1 1 1 5

OR 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 9

WA-E 1 1 1 1 4

WA-W 1 1 1 1 4

Tenth

NM 1 1

OK-W 1 1 1 3

Eleventh

Table IV.2: Listing of the Number of

Recalled Bankruptcy Judge

Appointments, by District and Fiscal

Year, as of September 30, 1990-1997,

and as of April 30, 1998, in Circuit Order
Appendix IV

Data on Recalled Magistrate and Bankruptcy Judges, by District and Fiscal Year

Page 38 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

Circuit/

District 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Total

AL-N 1 1

Total 10 10 12 11 23 24 22 22 25 159

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Number of judges recalled

Effective date

Number of

judges eligible

for recall

Ad hoc

recall

Extended

recall Total

Number of recalled

judges who served

in previous yeara

09-30-90 19 4 0 4 N/A

09-30-91 30 6 0 6 4

09-30-92 44 7 0 7 5

09-30-93 49 9 0 9 7

09-30-94 60 12 1 13 8

09-30-95 73 15 1 16 11

09-30-96 83 19 1 20 14

09-30-97 92 17 1 18 13

04-30-98 96 17 1 18 15

Note: N/A = not applicable

a

Judges whose recall terms were renewed or judges who were serving on extended recall.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Table IV.3: Number of Retired

Magistrate Judges Eligible for Recall,

Number of Eligible Judges Recalled by

Type of Recall, and Number of Recalled

Judges Who Served in Previous Years,

as of September 30, 1990-1997, and as

of April 30, 1998
Appendix IV

Data on Recalled Magistrate and Bankruptcy Judges, by District and Fiscal Year

Page 39 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

Number of judges recalled

Effective date

Number of judges

 eligible for recall Ad hoc recall Extended recall Total

Number of recalled judges

who served in previous year a

09-30-90 18 10 0 10 N/A

09-30-91 22 10 0 10 10

09-30-92 27 12 0 12 9

09-30-93 33 11 0 11 10

09-30-94 42 16 7 23 10

09-30-95 47 16 8 24 20

09-30-96 50 12 10 22 19

09-30-97 55 17 5 22 20

04-30-98 60 22 3 25 18

Note: N/A = not applicable

a

Judges whose recall terms were renewed or judges who were serving on extended recall.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Number of retired

judges eligible for recall

Number of eligible retired

judges who were recalled

Percentage of eligible retired judges

who were recalleda

Effective

date

Retired at less

than full salary

Retired at full

salary

Retired at less

than full salary

Retired at

full salary

Retired at less

than full salary

Retired at full

salary

09-30-90 19 0 4 0 21 N/A

09-30-91 26 4 5 1 19 25

09-30-92 35 9 4 3 11 33

09-30-93 36 13 6 3 17 23

09-30-94 43 17 6 7 14 41

09-30-95 50 23 7 9 14 39

09-30-96 58 25 9 11 16 44

09-30-97 61 31 8 10 13 32

04-30-98 61 35 8 10 13 29

Note: N/A = not applicable

a

Rounded to nearest whole number.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Table IV.4: Number of Retired Bankruptcy Judges Eligible for Recall, Number of Eligible Judges Recalled by Type of Recall,

and Number of Recalled Judges Who Served in Previous Years, as of September 30, 1990-1997, and as of April 30, 1998

Table IV.5: Number and Percentage of Retired Magistrate Judges Eligible for Recall and Who Were Recalled, by Pension Status,

as of September 30, 1990-1997, and as of April 30, 1998
Appendix IV

Data on Recalled Magistrate and Bankruptcy Judges, by District and Fiscal Year

Page 40 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

Number of retired

judges eligible for recall

Number of retired judges

who were recalled

Percentage of retired judges eligible for

recall who were recalleda

Effective

date

Retired at less

than full salary

Retired at

full salary

Retired at less

than full salary

Retired at full

salary

Retired at less than

full salary

Retired at full

salary

09-30-90 13 5 10 0 77 0

09-30-91 15 7 10 0 67 0

09-30-92 14 13 10 2 71 15

09-30-93 16 17 8 3 50 18

09-30-94 15 27 9 14 60 52

09-30-95 14 33 6 18 43 55

09-30-96 15 35 5 17 33 49

09-30-97 16 39 4 18 25 46

04-30-98 17 43 7 18 41 42 a

Rounded to nearest whole number.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Table IV.6: Number and Percentage of Retired Bankruptcy Judges Eligible for Recall and Who Were Recalled, by Pension

Status, as of September 30, 1990-1997, and as of April 30, 1998
Appendix V

Weighted Case Filings for Courts that

Recalled Magistrate or Bankruptcy Judges,

Fiscal Years 1990 to 1997

Page 41 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

Circuit/District 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

National averagea427 386 412 419 419 448 472 519

D.C.

D.C.b 306 327 278 274 271 237 251 259

First

RI 326 316 353 292 283 322 298 308

Second

NY-N 419 357 414 387 463 452 494 454

NY-W 413 435 506 522 504 510 492 497

Third

NJ 446 386 382 395 414 449 423 443

PA-E 442 373 387 376 404 405 376 402

Fourth

SC 451 443 449 501 488 527 520 580

Fifth

MS-N 381 358 407 465 407 379 428 444

TX-S 695 450 465 457 486 887 503 543

Sixth

MI-E 355 376 437 397 387 419 459 1,649

OH-N 450 349 370 441 415 424 486 504

OH-S 404 376 411 381 388 395 436 440

Seventh

IL-C 404 332 331 357 299 371 361 383

Eighth

MN 353 376 372 403 419 422 458 542

MO-E 457 338 356 382 377 393 441 462

NE 520 353 354 339 353 355 377 410

Ninth

CA-C 442 362 405 411 407 431 451 424

CA-E 427 376 417 436 465 537 570 601

CA-N 412 352 368 431 438 424 490 492

CA-S 519 517 677 602 560 726 833 814

OR 492 476 464 450 513 572 513 536

WA-E 347 288 261 275 253 264 301 259

Tenth

NM 542 477 536 562 579 585 651 653

Eleventh

FL-S 520 507 436 457 464 551 634 605 a

Weighted case filings per authorized district judge.

b

For each district court, weighted case filings are shown in bold for the year(s) in which the district

court had a recalled judge on duty at the end of the fiscal year.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Table V.1: District Court Weighted Case

Filings, in Districts that Recalled at

Least One Magistrate Judge, Fiscal

Years 1990-1997
Appendix V

Weighted Case Filings for Courts that Recalled Magistrate or Bankruptcy Judges, Fiscal

Years 1990 to 1997

Page 42 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

Circuit/District 1992a1994 1995 1996 1997

National average 1,437 1,227 1,149 1,272 1,436

Second

CT 1,662 1,552 1,200 1,404 1,378

NY-Eb 1,904 1,737 1,682 1,729 1,640

NY-S 1,916 1,271 1,396 1,394 1,510

VT 741 514 536 544 639

Third

PA-W 1,062 813 752 819 923

Fourth

NC-M 821 612 675 883 1,062

NC-W 1,470 950 937 1,363 2,321

VA-E 1,935 1,389 1,484 1,631 1,887

Fifth

LA-E 1,197 948 924 991 1,145

TX-E 1,179 1,218 1,392 1,699 1,838

TX-S 1,484 1,173 1,249 1,392 1,352

Sixth

KY-E 1,236 802 844 919 1,030

MI-E 2,067 1,811 1,713 1,679 2,104

MI-W 1,215 897 903 1,013 1,266

OH-N 1,032 699 788 747 871

OH-S 1,067 747 815 949 1,009

TN-E 1,100 942 854 1,166 1,306

Seventh

IL-C 886 654 742 873 1,068

IL-N 1,199 1,130 968 1,179 1,291

IN-N 1,098 791 794 933 1,112

WI-E 619 507 563 800 757

Eighth

MN 1,487 1,333 1,260 1,452 1,466

Ninth

CA-C 2,144 2,084 1,859 1,904 1,847

CA-E 1,576 1,542 1,385 1,578 1,813

CA-N 1,828 1,574 1,374 1,431 1,524

HI 779 767 819 1,047 1,237

NV 1,380 1,150 1,120 1,282 1,510

OR 1,050 1,012 916 981 1,043

WA-E 821 645 674 808 969

WA-W 1,267 1,296 1,204 1,466 1,611

Tenth

NM 1,029 792 681 1,062 1,138

OK-W 930 768 712 1,007 1,198

Eleventh

AL-N 1,595 1,649 1,843 1,717 1,876 a

Fiscal year data were not available for fiscal years 1990, 1991, and 1993.

b

For each bankruptcy court, weighted case filings are shown in bold for the year(s) in which the

bankruptcy court had a recalled judge on duty at the end of the fiscal year.

Source: GAO analysis of AOUSC data.

Table V.2: Weighted Case Filings in

Bankruptcy Courts that Recalled at

Least One Judge, Fiscal Years 1992 and

1994-1997
Appendix VI

Comments From AOUSC

Page 43 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges
Appendix VII

Major Contributors to This Report

Page 44 GAO/GGD-99-22 Recalled Judges

William Jenkins, Jr., Assistant Director

Christopher Conrad, Evaluator-in-Charge

Mary Kay Muse, Senior Evaluator

Geoffrey Hamilton, Senior Attorney Advisor

General Government

Division

Dallas Field Office

Office of General

Counsel
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.

Order 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 (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

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 touch-tone 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 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
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

(188642)