|
|
|
|
APPROPRIATIONS
FOR ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE
"Oh, oh, one other thing. The Judiciary, the Judiciary has consistently not requested funding for the Attorney Discplinary System, consistently. In fact, the funding has gone down. The funding has gone down even as they were clamoring for judicial pay raises which they secured. The annual budgeting for the Attorney Disciplinary System is $15 million. The judicial pay raises paid out since 2012 are at last $150 million and $50 million each and every year." CJA's August 11, 2015 testimony before the Commission on Statewide Attorney Discipline VIDEO (last witness) & transcript (pp.162-3) & CJA's substantiating hand-out of the Judiciary Budget Requests for Attorney Discipline -- 2011-2015 * * * CJA's "QUESTIONS FOR CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS" -- at the Legislature's Feb. 4, 2016 'Public Protection' Budget Hearing" click here for: EVIDENTIARY WEBPAGE "24: Can you explain why notwithstanding the September 24, 2015 Report of former Chief Judge Lippman's Commission on Statewide Attorney Discipline recommending an 'Increase to funding and staffing across-the-board for the disciplinary committees' (Executive Summary, at p. 4), stating 'Additional funding and staffing must be made available to the disciplinary committees' (at p. 57), the Judiciary's proposed budget for fiscal year 2016-2017 essentially seeks no increase for its 'Attorney Discipline Program'?"
CJA's "QUESTIONS FOR CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS" at the Legislature's January 30, 2018 "Public Protection' Budget Hearing" click here for: EVIDENTIARY WEBPAGE "42. Can you explain why notwithstanding the September 24, 2015 Report of former Chief Judge Lippman’s Commission on Statewide Attorney Discipline recommending an 'Increase to funding and staffing across-the-board for the disciplinary committees” (Executive Summary, at p. 4), stating 'Additional funding and staffing must be made available to the disciplinary committees' (at p. 57), the Judiciary’s proposed appropriation of $15,514,625 for fiscal year 2018-2019 is LESS than its 2011-2012 request of $15,547,143 – and only about $650,000 more than the $14,859,673 it was when the Commission on Statewide Attorney Discipline rendered its September 24, 2015 Report." written testimony for 2019 Budget Hearing click here for: EVIDENTIARY WEBPAGE "37.
Can you explain why notwithstanding
the September 24, 2015 report of former Chief Judge
Lippman’s Commission on Statewide Attorney Discipline
recommending an 'Increase to funding and staffing
across-the-board for the disciplinary committees' (Executive
Summary, at p. 4), stating 'Additional funding and staffing
must be made available to the disciplinary committees' (at
p. 57), the Judiciary’s proposed appropriation of
$15,435,741 for fiscal year 2019-2020
is almost $80,000 less than the $15,514,625 appropriation
for fiscal year 2018-2019, which was LESS than its 2011-2012
request of $15,547,143 – and not appreciably greater
than the $14,859,673 it was when the Commission on Statewide
Attorney Discipline rendered its September 24, 2015 report. ----------- JUDICIARY's BUDGET REQUESTS FOR ITS "ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE PROGRAM" JUDICIARY's BUDGET REQUESTS FOR ITS "ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE PROGRAM" FY 2024-25 -- FY 2023-24 -- $16,802,885 (at p. 125) FY 2022-23 -- $16,771,146 (at p. 122) FY 2021-22 -- $16,026,747 FY 2020-21 -- $15,984,416 FY 2019-20 -- $15,435,741 FY 2018-19 -- $15,514,625 FY 2017-18 -- $15,078,074 * * * matters "received"/"disposed (2019) matters "received"/"disposed (2018) matters "received"/"disposed (2017) matters "received"/"disposed (2016) matters "received"/"disposed (2015)
matters "received"/"disposed (2011) matters "received"/"disposed (2009) |
|
|
|
CJA Ho |
|
|
Mailing
Address: |
