In October 2005, the Council for Court Excellence published The District of Columbia Family Court Appointed Counsel System: Report and Recommendations and began discussions with the DC Superior Court leadership about implementing some of the recommendations. In 2009, the Family Court implemented one of the report’s recommendations, to require all panel attorneys to reapply periodically and undergo substantive evaluation.

The 2005 report is a comprehensive analysis of the District of Columbia’s system for providing lawyers to represent all children and indigent adults in child neglect court proceedings. Such representation has been guaranteed by DC law for more than twenty years and is a far more comprehensive legal safety net than in many jurisdictions in the nation.

The Council for Court Excellence report builds on four studies published by the District of Columbia Bar since 1975 of Superior Court appointed counsel systems for criminal and family cases, and it traces the results of the most recent of those four studies, the Muse Report of 1993.

Because it addresses an issue unresolved by the Superior Court since 1975, one of the 2005 report’s most important recommendations is the following: “Ending judicial review of [attorney] vouchers has been recommended to the D.C. Superior Court for thirty years, and we renew that recommendation.” The first DC Bar study, the 1975 Austern-Rezneck Report, concluded: “Should the voucher power continue to be in the hands of the judges? We have concluded that it should not. No matter how conscientiously exercised, the authority judges have over payments to counsel is fraught with conflicts of interest.” The fourth DC Bar study, the 1993 Muse Report, quoted the DC Rules of Professional Conduct in support of the same recommendation: “A lawyer shall not permit a person who recommends, employs, or pays the lawyer to render legal services for another to direct or regulate the lawyer’s professional judgment in rendering such legal services.” The Muse Report then concluded: “A system where the judge controls a lawyer’s fees is thus fraught with risks to the rights of clients to the independent judgment of their counsel.”

Besides the two recommendations referred to above, the 2005 CCE report proposes increased predictability of the appointment system in individual cases and changes to the attorney compensation system when an attorney represents more than one child in a family. The Council for Court Excellence also urges the Superior Court to seek statutory authority for a mechanism to adjust the attorneys’ hourly pay rate periodically, consistent with cost of living increases.

The Council’s Appointed Counsel study and report were supported by grants from Trellis Fund, Freddie Mac Foundation, and the United States Congress. No judicial member of the Council participated in preparation of the published report.