It's Time to Revamp the PCRA Appointment System
I am on the Philadelphia court-appointed list and have not signed up to do PCRAs, but I was still appointed on a PCRA case and might be appointed on a second one. I immediately declined the appointment, but was told I was not allowed to do so. Can I ethically decline the appointment?
June 29, 2017 at 04:13 PM
16 minute read
Editor's note: The court issued an order June 26 outlining a new fee schedule and setting rules and procedures for conflict counsel attorneys to recover their fees. The order was issued after the First Judicial District's Administrative Governing Board convened a special committee to review conflict counsel fees.
|It's time to revamp the PCRA appointment system.
I am on the Philadelphia court-appointed list and have not signed up to do PCRAs, but I was still appointed on a PCRA case and might be appointed on a second one. I immediately declined the appointment, but was told I was not allowed to do so. Can I ethically decline the appointment?
The Philadelphia court system has been bogged down with numerous post-conviction hearing relief petitions filed by pro se petitioners. There are some lawyers who have asked to be appointed on PCRA cases, but they are quickly overwhelmed with the work. It's a very dangerous situation for a lawyer to be in. PCRAs take a lot of time and effort. Yet, the payment system is very poor. When one submits a fee petition, it is normally cut sometimes substantially. The biggest problem is one can't be timely paid. There are two payment times. First, after the PCRA is denied, which could take a year or two. One can then submit a petition. That will be reviewed and will take eight months to a year before that's approved and usually cut. The payment time is when one appeals the PCRA petition denial. That process could take another two years and there is no payment until the entire appellate process is completed. And then, again, it takes about six months to a year or more for approval and the fee is often cut.
In some of the counties, compensation of the PCRA is not much better. There are court-appointed lawyers in the counties who receive a flat fee no matter how many cases they receive. There are some counties that have one court-appointed counsel for PCRAs. It makes it almost impossible to handle the cases and do them correctly and diligently.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMatt's Corner: Pa.R.D.E. 217—Obligations of a Formerly Admitted Attorney
2 minute readMatt's Corner: Contributory Negligence Can Be a Bar to Legal Malpractice Recovery
2 minute readMatt's Corner: RPC 8.4(d)—Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250