Federal Courts to Require PDF/A Filings

The Administrative Office of the United States Courts is changing the technical standards associated with CM/ECF filings. The reason for the change is to ensure that, in the future, we will still be able to view electronically filed documents as they were originally filed.

Normally, Adobe Acrobat saves a document without including the font as part of the file (it just assumes that everyone else will have the same fonts already installed on their computers, thus keeping the file size smaller). The problem, though, occurs when someone does not have a particular font installed. In that situation, the PDF viewer program has to substitute another font which the user does have installed in place of the missing font. The result, though, is that the viewer is not seeing the document as it was meant to be viewed.

The solution to the problem is to save your PDF files with the font (or fonts) which you used to create them. That way, future viewers of the document will be able to see the document the way you intended it to be seen.

The way to do this is to save the PDF documents with the PDF/A settings. PDF/A stands for “PDF for Archiving.” It is a standard format which is meant for long-term archiving of documents. I believe that all law firms should already be saving their files this way, just to future-proof their paperless office systems.  Who knows what types of computers and operating systems and software we will be using next year, much less decades from now.  Wouldn’t it be nice to still be able to view your saved documents quickly and easily?

Also, when a person later opens a PDF/A file, that format will limits what a viewer can do with it. The reason is because the document is being viewed in “archive mode.” Think of that as a hands-off, final form view of the document. For lawyers, think of it as a kind of as a type of document which has been “file-marked” (it isn’t literally file marked, I just mean that the document is the type of document which can no longer be changed). A user can, of course, go back into Word or WordPerfect and create a new version with whatever changes need to be made and then save it again as a new PDF/A document; but, a PDF/A version of a document cannot be changed itself.

I do realize that most attorneys already think of PDF documents that way, so this shouldn’t be that difficult of a mental change. We usually don’t create the PDF version of a document until we are done editing, and then the document is ready to be filed or sent to someone. However, for other users, they are aware that it is possible to open a PDF document and add comments and make changes even after it was created. PDF/A stops that, though.

So, how do you create a PDF/A document with Adobe Acrobat? If, like me, you “print” to the Adobe Acrobat print driver in Windows, simply click “Printer Properties” in whatever program you are “printing” from, and in the Default Settings box, choose “PDF/A-1b:2005 (RGB).” You can go to the Control Panel, under “Devices and Printers,” right-click on the “Adobe PDF” printer, and change the printing preferences to default to “PDF/A-1b:2005 (RGB).”

For more information, here is a blog entry on Adobe’s own website which contains more background information and links to other ideas about this topic.

Federal CJA Compensation Rates

Since I have not posted an updated table since the last increase, I thought I would simply link to PDF file that summarizes everything in an easy-to-read form.  Click this link to download the current and historical rates.

More information, and fill-in-the-blank forms, can be found on the Office of Defender Services Training Branch’s website.

Federal Pleas and Jury Trials in the Western District

Looking at the latest numbers available (Statistical Information Packet, 2008), it is interesting to note that in 2008 there 76,427 total convictions in the federal system.  Of those, 96.3% of defendants pled guilty and only 3.7% took their case to trial.

Even more interesting is that in the Western District of Texas, there were a total of 7,232 convictions.  Of those, 98.7% pled guilty and a mere 1.3% went to trial.

By comparison, in Texas state court 97.3% of felony convictions were the result of a guilty plea and 2.7% of convictions resulted from a trial. 

So why aren’t more federal defendants in this part of Texas going to trial? 

It can’t be because the prosecutors are recommending lower sentences, because they aren’t.  In fact, given that in almost all cases the judges of the Western District sentenced lower than the national average, maybe losing that “acceptance of responsibility” reduction isn’t that big of a deal!

The Department of Justice vs. The Western District of Texas Judiciary

Even for someone who loves numbers and statistics as much as I do, I am continually amazed at how much data the United States government collects. 

For example, the United States Sentencing Commission publishes quarterly and annual reports on federal sentencing averages.  This is useful information for someone who might be wondering what the average sentence for a federal drug trafficking offense might be (83.2 months nationally, while only 46.5 months in the Western District).

And that leads to an interesting observation:  a defendant in the Western District of Texas is likely to find more mercy from the judge than from the Department of Justice.

In almost every category of offense, the Western District of Texas gives lower average sentences than the rest of the nation (here, page 10).  The four notable exceptions are the offense categories of Embezzlement, Forgery, Bribery, and Tax.

However, where the Western District lags behind the rest of the nation is in government sponsored below range sentences.  Nationally, US Attorneys ask for below range sentences in 25.6% of all cases (that’s one out of four!).  In the Western District, though, the government only seeks reduced sentences in 9.5% of all cases (that’s one out of ten!) (here, page 11).

Nationally, federal judges sentence above the guideline range in 1.5% of all cases, and Western District judges sentence above the guideline range in 1.8% of all cases.

So, for the average defendant in the Western District of Texas, that defendant probably shouldn’t fear the judge – but rather, the prosecutor.

Federal CJA Rates Change

UPDATE: These rates have been amended since the date of this post. For an updated list, see this new posting.

The federal CJA (Criminal Justice Act) rates for mileage changed effective January 1, 2009.  Therefore, I needed to update my rate and mileage charts.  In case you need a similar chart, feel free to print mine out and stick it somewhere:

Federal CJA Hourly Rates

$90 per hour: 5/1/02 to 12/31/05

$92 per hour: 1/1/06 to 5/19/07

$94 per hour: 5/20/07 to 12/31/07

$100 per hour: 1/1/08 to Today

Federal CJA Mileage Chart

36.5 cents per mile: 1/21/02 to 12/31/02

36.0 cents per mile: 1/1/03 to 12/31/03

37.5 cents per mile: 1/1/04 to 2/3/05

40.5 cents per mile: 2/4/05 to 8/31/05

48.5 cents per mile: 9/1/05 to 12/31/05

44.5 cents per mile: 1/1/06 to 1/31/07

48.5 cents per mile: 2/1/07 to 3/18/08

50.5 cents per mile: 3/19/08 to 7/31/08

58.5 cents per mile: 8/1/08 to 12/31/08

55.0 cents per mile: 1/1/09 to Today