Legal Document

498 U.S. 233 111 S.Ct. 628 112 L.Ed.2d 710 In re Vivian BERGER, Petitioner. No. ___. Jan. 14, 1991. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner Berger, appointed to represent a capital defendant in proceedings before this Court pursuant Court's Rule 39.7,* has filed motion requesting compensation for such services well excess of the statutory maximum $2,500 permitted under present practice by Criminal Justice Act 1964, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d)(2) (CJA). Although it been adhere limits 3006A(d)(2), petitioner argues that cap cases recently lifted provision Anti-Drug Abuse Amendments 1988, 102 Stat. 4312, 21 801 et seq., which permits award an amount "reasonably necessary" ensure competent representation. 848(q)(10). The relevant language is this: 2 "Notwithstanding rates and generally applicable criminal any other law contrary, court shall fix be paid attorneys subsection fees expenses investigative, expert, reasonably necessary authorized paragraph (9), at or amounts as determines carry out requirements paragraphs (4) through (9)." 3 section its terms authorizes federal courts compensate defendants CJA exceeding limit Act. Guidelines developed Judicial Conference assist interpreting applying mandate 848(q) support interpretation. 7 Administration (Apr.1990). Section 6.02(A) Guidelines, entitled "Inapplicability Hourly Rates Compensation Maximums," provides counsel "shall compensated rate determined exclusively presiding judicial officer obtain qualified defendant, without regard hourly maximums." 6.02(B) recommends "at sufficient cover counsel's general office overhead adequate representation provided." That also "limit attorney prosecutions death penalty habeas corpus between $75 $125 per hour in-court out-of-court time." Ibid. 4 We adopt approach, therefore turn question what level receive Court. Our Rules provide "[i]n case certiorari granted jurisdiction noted postponed, may appoint party financially unable afford extent amended, 3006A." 39.7. It our both noncapital requested, up 3006A(d)(2). note served parties well. Under existing practice, almost invariably high quality administrative ease requests are disposed bright-line rule assists conserving limited resources institution. 5 could argued, on basis date, there no need attorney's greater than order induce capable But we think argument outweighed possibility may, margins, deter otherwise willing from offering their indigent defendants. Given rising costs practicing today, believe should able not exceed $5,000, twice past practice. decline accept petitioner's request individual case-by-case approach fees. Such inquiry time consuming, result necessarily imprecise, would lead us into area have little experience. wise expenditure deal with fee applications those individualized basis. 6 grant Berger $5,000. so ordered. * was Robyn Leroy Parks See Saffle v. Parks, 494 484, 110 1257, 108 415 (1990).

Classification Label: 5