Bill Overview
Title: District of Columbia Courts Improvement Act of 2022
Description: This bill amends certain laws relating to the District of Columbia (DC) courts. The bill revises and modifies the rules and procedures for the service of jurors in the DC courts, including to allow the exclusion from jury service of an individual who is 70 years of age or older upon the person's request. Grand and petit jurors serving in the Superior Court shall receive fees and allowances at the same rates provided for fees and allowances paid to grand and petit jurors appearing in the district courts of the United States. The bill adjusts the amount of compensation paid to attorneys representing indigent defendants in criminal cases and criminal investigators in DC courts to equal the amount that is paid to such persons with regard to a U.S. district court. The bill also modifies the process for appointment of the Register of Wills; authorizes retroactive pay adjustments for employees of the DC courts; revises certain administrative functions, including those concerning use of fees, acceptance of gifts, procurement of motor vehicles, and use of space in courts buildings; and revises the administration of the Small Claims and Conciliation Branch, including regarding the use of arbitration, mediation, and conciliation to settle cases.
Sponsors: Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]
Target Audience
Population: Residents and individuals involved with the District of Columbia court system
Estimated Size: 700000
- The bill impacts residents and individuals involved with the court system within the District of Columbia.
- Jurors, especially those above 70 years, will be directly impacted by changes in service rules.
- Compensation changes will affect attorneys and criminal investigators involved in indigent defense.
- The bill impacts employees of the DC courts through possible retroactive pay adjustments.
- Appointments and administrative changes may impact professionals within the DC court system and related sectors.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects individuals directly interacting with the DC court system - including jurors, court employees, attorneys, and involved parties in the judicial processes like arbitration and mediation.
- Considering the budget constraint of $2,000,000 USD for the first year and $20,000,000 over ten years, the policy must prioritize cost-effective measures such as adjusting juror service rules and aligning compensation rates with the U.S. District Court standards.
- Only a section of DC's population will be impacted - those over 70 in jury duty, attorneys handling indigent defense cases, criminal investigators, and court employees subject to pay adjustments.
- For estimating wellbeing changes, individuals who commonly experience stress related to court involvement or courtroom employment might see the most perception of improvement if adjustments in the policy lead to less strain from court duties or better compensation.
- Some demographic groups like senior citizens may opt-out from jury duties, reducing their burden, while court employees may benefit from financial adjustments if pay equates to similar federal court roles.
Simulated Interviews
Retired Teacher (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 72 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm relieved by the possibility of being able to opt out of jury duty at my age. I love staying involved, but long trials can be exhausting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Criminal Defense Attorney (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Equal pay rates compared to the U.S. district court for my services would greatly alleviate the financial strain and feel like being properly valued for my work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
DC Court Employee (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Retroactive pay adjustments could help with past financial gaps, offering some stability in uncertain times.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Small business owner (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Changes in small claims court processes like increased mediation may reduce time and complexity in resolving minor disputes, allowing me to focus more on my business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Paralegal (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better pay for attorneys means potentially more resources and lesser workload trickling down to support staff like me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Retired Government Worker (Arlington, Virginia)
Age: 68 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Accessing the option to decline jury service at my age is a relief - it's nice to have a choice.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Law Clerk (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Revisions in administrative functions might streamline our workflows, although direct impacts will depend on implementation details.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Freelance Journalist (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Changes seem mostly internal to court operations, but efficient processes might reduce reporting chaos, aiding in clarity and accuracy in journalism.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Court Translator (Bethesda, Maryland)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Adjustments in administrative functions and pay might improve working conditions through better resourcing and better coordination within the court system.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Law Student (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Seeing attorneys in indigent defense receive fairer pay is encouraging, showing appreciation for a crucial legal role I aspire to.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000 (Low: $1800000, High: $2200000)
Year 2: $2000000 (Low: $1800000, High: $2200000)
Year 3: $2000000 (Low: $1800000, High: $2200000)
Year 5: $2000000 (Low: $1800000, High: $2200000)
Year 10: $2000000 (Low: $1800000, High: $2200000)
Year 100: $2000000 (Low: $1800000, High: $2200000)
Key Considerations
- The adjustment of court employee salaries to align with federal levels sets a precedent for compensation parity.
- The impact on federal GDP is minor due to the localized nature of the D.C. courts.
- Due consideration should be given to any legal challenges arising from administrative changes, such as the appointment process of the Register of Wills.