It's mean; it's onerous; it's insulting.
But it is available if you intend to keep on taking dependency appointments after July 1, that is, after five days from now.
So here it is. Is anyone going to re-up?
By the way, I note, (if I am reading the appropriations bill correctly), the budget for fiscal year 2008 for court-appointed counsel in civil and dependency cases is $5.5 million statewide. I wonder how much of that will be eaten up by 2007 billings that just don't happen to be paid yet as of June 30th. I alone have a half-dozen audit deficiency responses for which I've been waiting for JAC to make a decision for over eight months.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I recently received an audit notice stating that the order of appointment must state either that ROC withdrew from case and or was not in operation. Why didn't JAC ask for this to be placed into the order of appointment prior to the appointment? Now i have to pull the file, prepare a motion, prepare an amended order, etc.
Is this really required??
I was in criminal court the other day picking up transcripts for an appeal on an appointed case and an office worker informed me that numerous court reporters have not been getting paid.
Is that fair? It just sounds like new politicians have been sweeping legal proceedings under the carpet. Why is that?
It's amazing how we get a 15% penalty for taking longer than 90 days to submit our bills....but the JAC has NO time limit. That's fair. They sit on those hourly billings for MONTHS!!!
They sit on flat rate billings as well.
Additionally, they ask for documentation that they obviously already have...such as appointment orders, when the case is clearly already in the system when I sign into my account.
Post a Comment