ClaimHour

Fee petition mechanics · Updated June 2026

Criminal defense attorney fee petition mechanics: arraignment and preliminary hearing advisory call cycle, pre-trial suppression motion and Pitchess hearing call cycle, and 18 U.S.C. § 3006A CJA voucher/Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6200 MFAA fee reconstruction documentation

Criminal defense solos billing hourly on arraignments, preliminary hearings, § 1538.5 suppression motions, Pitchess hearings, and trial preparation — whose fee documentation must satisfy 18 U.S.C. § 3006A Criminal Justice Act voucher standards for appointed counsel and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6200 Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act requirements for retained counsel, while simultaneously building a Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) record of reasonable representation covering advisory calls triggered by the court's arraignment calendar, the court's law-and-motion calendar, and the trial readiness and sentencing calendar outside counsel's control — generate three billing gaps: arraignment and preliminary hearing advisory calls arriving when the court sets its arraignment and § 859 preliminary examination dates on the court's scheduling calendar (10 clients × 2 calls × 40 min × 55% untracked ≈ 7.33 hrs = $2,200–$3,667/year at $300–$500/hr), pre-trial § 1538.5 suppression motion and Pitchess hearing advisory calls arriving when the superior court sets law-and-motion calendar dates for suppression hearings and in camera Pitchess reviews (8 clients × 3 calls × 44 min × 55% untracked ≈ 9.68 hrs = $2,904–$4,840/year), and trial readiness, verdict, and sentencing advisory calls arriving when the court's trial calendar posts readiness conference, verdict, and sentencing hearing dates (6 clients × 2 calls × 48 min × 55% ≈ 5.28 hrs = $1,584–$2,640/year). For a solo criminal defense practice, the annual billing gap from advisory call underlogging is $6,688–$11,155.

TL;DR

ClaimHour captures every arraignment and preliminary hearing advisory call that arrives when the court's scheduling system posts arraignment dates and § 859 preliminary examination calendars, every § 1538.5 suppression and Pitchess advisory call that arrives when the court's law-and-motion calendar sets suppression hearing and in camera review dates, and every trial readiness, verdict, and sentencing advisory call that arrives when the court's trial calendar posts readiness conference and sentencing milestones — passively, no timer, no audio, no call contents. $29–$59/mo. No PMS required.

Arraignment and preliminary hearing advisory: calls on the court's arraignment calendar

Criminal arraignment and preliminary hearing dates are set by the court's own docketing system — the court posts arraignment dates, preliminary examination dates under Cal. Penal Code § 859, and continuance dates on a calendar controlled entirely by the court clerk's office. Defense counsel's first advisory calls in a criminal representation arrive on this court-controlled calendar, at junctures the attorney cannot predict from any billing schedule established at engagement. For in-custody defendants, the court's statutory timelines (10 court days for preliminary examination under § 859(b); 60 days for trial under § 1382(a)(2)) create a compressed series of mandatory advisory calls.

Three arraignment and preliminary hearing advisory call types that arrive on the court's arraignment calendar: (1) initial arraignment, bail review, and Brady/evidence-preservation advisory — arrives when the court posts the arraignment date and defense counsel makes the initial appearance — requiring assessment of bail under Cal. Penal Code § 1275 (the court must consider the protection of the public, the seriousness of the offense, the defendant's prior record, and the probability of appearance when determining whether bail is appropriate and at what amount), analysis of whether Proposition 57 (2016) non-violent felony parole considerations apply, determination of whether an immediate Trombetta/Youngblood evidence preservation demand should be filed (California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984): the Due Process Clause requires the government to preserve evidence that possesses apparent exculpatory value before destruction and that the defendant cannot obtain by reasonably available alternative means; Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988): the failure to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence violates due process only when the police acted in bad faith — the defense must act immediately at arraignment to demand preservation of dashcam video, bodycam footage, 911 recordings, and physical evidence before routine police destruction schedules trigger irreversible loss), identification of any multiple-representation conflict under Cal. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.7 where two co-defendants with adverse interests seek representation by the same attorney (Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (1978): a Sixth Amendment violation occurs when the trial court ignores a timely objection to the attorney's conflict — defense counsel must raise the conflict immediately at the initial appearance), and the court's continuance calendar as a source of additional advisory call junctures when defense counsel seeks time waiver to prepare (38–44 min); (2) preliminary examination strategy and Pitchess motion threshold advisory — arrives when the court posts the § 859 preliminary examination date — requiring analysis of the corpus delicti rule under People v. Alvarez, 27 Cal.4th 1161 (2002) (the prosecution must establish by some evidence independent of the defendant's extrajudicial statements that a crime was committed — the showing required is slight and need only raise a reasonable inference that a crime occurred), preparation of the cross-examination strategy for the prosecution's preliminary examination witnesses to create a record for impeachment at trial (People v. Rincon-Pineda, 14 Cal.3d 864 (1975): preliminary examination testimony may be admitted at trial if the witness is unavailable — the defense must lock in the witness's testimony at the preliminary examination), assessment of whether a Pitchess motion under Cal. Evidence Code § 1043 should be filed before the preliminary examination or reserved for superior court (Pitchess v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 531 (1974): the defense may compel in camera review of peace officer personnel records containing prior complaints of dishonesty, fabrication of evidence, or excessive force — the Pitchess motion must describe with particularity the type of records sought and establish good cause by showing a plausible scenario supported by specific facts in which the misconduct might have occurred), and identification of the § 995 motion standard (Cal. Penal Code § 995: the information must be set aside if the defendant was not legally committed, if the magistrate had no jurisdiction, or if the commitment was made without reasonable or probable cause — the § 995 motion attacks the legal sufficiency of the commitment rather than the factual weight of the evidence) (40–46 min); (3) Brady/Giglio compliance review and § 1054 statutory discovery advisory — arrives when the prosecution serves its initial statutory discovery under Cal. Penal Code § 1054.1 (the prosecution must disclose the names and addresses of persons the prosecutor intends to call as witnesses at trial, the statements of all defendants, all exculpatory evidence or information, any felony convictions of material witnesses, and any written or recorded statements by any prosecution witness) and the defense evaluates Brady/Giglio compliance — Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (evidence affecting the credibility of prosecution witnesses — plea agreements, prior inconsistent statements, promises of leniency, and impeachment information — must be disclosed as Brady material); Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (Brady materiality is established when there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different if the suppressed evidence had been disclosed — the prosecution determines the materiality of evidence on its own internal timeline, creating advisory calls that arrive when the prosecution's rolling Brady disclosure calendar reaches each disclosure decision) — requiring defense counsel to send written Brady/Giglio demand letters specifying each category of material requested, to monitor the prosecution's disclosure compliance under § 1054.1's continuing duty to disclose, and to document each receipt of new discovery as a Welch temporal anchor for the billing period (38–44 min). At 55% untracked: 10 clients × 2 calls × 40 min × 55% = 440 min / 60 = 7.33 hours = $2,200–$3,667/year at $300–$500/hr.

Pre-trial suppression motion and Pitchess hearing advisory: calls on the court's law-and-motion calendar

Pre-trial motions in California criminal cases — § 1538.5 suppression motions, Pitchess in camera hearings, § 995 motions to set aside the information, and in limine motions — are scheduled on the superior court's law-and-motion calendar on dates the court controls. In federal criminal cases, FRCP 12(c) pre-trial motion deadlines are set by the court's scheduling order. The court's law-and-motion calendar is independent of any billing schedule the attorney establishes at engagement, and advisory calls arrive at each motion milestone on a timeline the attorney cannot predict when the retainer is signed.

Three pre-trial suppression motion and Pitchess hearing advisory call types that arrive on the court's law-and-motion calendar: (1) § 1538.5 motion to suppress and Fourth Amendment analysis advisory — arrives when the court sets the § 1538.5 hearing date on its law-and-motion calendar — requiring comprehensive Fourth Amendment analysis (Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967): the Fourth Amendment protects persons against unreasonable searches and seizures by requiring government agents to honor reasonable expectations of privacy — a search occurs when the government violates a subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968): a police officer may conduct a brief investigatory stop — a 'Terry stop' — based on reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity; Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983): probable cause for a warrant is assessed by the totality of the circumstances, giving appropriate weight to the magistrate's common-sense assessment of the informant's veracity and the basis for the informant's knowledge), analysis of the applicable exception to the warrant requirement (automobile exception under United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982): police may search a vehicle without a warrant when they have probable cause to believe it contains contraband or evidence of a crime; exigent circumstances: the prosecution of crime being interrupted by delay would unreasonably impede law enforcement; consent: Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973): the voluntariness of consent to search is determined by the totality of the circumstances), evaluation of the good faith exception under United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (evidence obtained in objective good faith reliance on a warrant that is subsequently held defective is admissible — the good faith exception does not apply when the magistrate was misled by false information in the affidavit, when the magistrate wholly abandoned the judicial role, or when the warrant affidavit lacks probable cause on its face), and the California Proposition 8 limitation under Cal. Const. Art. I, § 28(f)(2) (evidence is not excluded in California criminal proceedings unless exclusion is required by the United States Constitution — state-law exclusionary grounds that exceed the federal exclusionary rule no longer apply in state criminal courts for evidence gathered after 1982) (42–48 min); (2) Pitchess in camera review and peace officer personnel records advisory — arrives when the Pitchess motion hearing date is posted by the court's law-and-motion calendar — requiring compliance with Cal. Evidence Code § 1043(b)(3) (the motion must be accompanied by affidavits showing good cause for the disclosure of the records sought — the good cause showing requires the defense to present a plausible factual scenario that is supported by specific facts, as distinguished from a merely conclusory claim of misconduct (Warrick v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.4th 1011 (2005): the 'materiality' standard for Pitchess good cause is satisfied when the defense can articulate a plausible scenario, not merely a possible scenario, in which the officer's misconduct could have occurred)), preparation for the in camera hearing under § 1045 (the judge reviews the officer's personnel file in camera without defense counsel present and discloses to the defense only information that is relevant to the subject matter — the defense attorney must submit a list of categories requested, and the court orders disclosure within the scope of the original motion and the good cause showing), analysis of any disclosed complaints for Brady/Giglio materiality (prior complaints of dishonesty or fabrication by the officer are Giglio impeachment material that must be disclosed to the defense regardless of whether the defense makes a specific request under United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)), and identification of any related § 1983 civil litigation against the officer in PACER that may contain additional discoverable records not in the personnel file (40–46 min)); (3) § 995 motion to set aside information and expert witness Frye/Kelly advisory — arrives when the court posts the § 995 motion hearing date on the law-and-motion calendar — requiring analysis of whether the preliminary examination evidence was legally sufficient to establish probable cause for commitment under § 995 for each charged count and each special allegation, assessment of whether expert testimony at the preliminary examination satisfied the Frye/Kelly general-acceptance standard for novel scientific evidence (People v. Kelly, 17 Cal.3d 24 (1976): the Kelly two-prong test requires the prosecution to establish (1) that the scientific technique in question is generally accepted in the scientific community and (2) that the particular witnesses are qualified to offer an opinion using that technique — California did not adopt the federal Daubert standard for criminal proceedings, and the Kelly/Frye general-acceptance test governs expert testimony in California criminal courts), identification of any Crawford confrontation clause issues with the admissibility of laboratory reports and forensic analysis certificates at the preliminary examination (Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009): certificates of analysis from laboratory technicians are testimonial statements subject to the Confrontation Clause — the prosecution must call the analyst as a witness or the certificate is inadmissible), and documentation of all motion research and filing tasks in contemporaneous billing records as the foundation for a Strickland performance record in any future habeas proceeding (42–48 min). At 55% untracked: 8 clients × 3 calls × 44 min × 55% = 581.04 min / 60 = 9.68 hours = $2,904–$4,840/year at $300–$500/hr.

Trial readiness, verdict, and sentencing advisory: calls on the trial calendar

Trial readiness conferences, trial dates, verdict proceedings, and sentencing hearings are all scheduled by the court on its trial calendar — a calendar controlled entirely by the court. In California state court, Cal. Penal Code § 1048 requires courts to give criminal matters precedence over civil matters, and § 1382 imposes statutory speedy trial deadlines that compress the trial preparation timeline for in-custody defendants. Advisory calls arrive at each milestone on the trial calendar — trial readiness conferences, in limine motion hearings, jury selection dates, verdict dates, and sentencing hearing dates — on a schedule neither the defense attorney nor the client controls.

Three trial readiness, verdict, and sentencing advisory call types that arrive on the trial calendar: (1) trial readiness conference and in limine motion strategy advisory — arrives when the court sets the trial readiness conference and in limine motion hearing dates on the trial calendar — requiring preparation of motions in limine to exclude prejudicial evidence under Cal. Evidence Code § 352 (the court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury), analysis of character evidence exclusion under § 1101(a) (evidence of a person's character or character trait in the form of specific instances of conduct is inadmissible to prove the person acted in conformity with the character — subject to exceptions for § 1102 (character as an element), § 1108 (sex offense cases: the prosecution may introduce evidence of the defendant's commission of another sexual offense if it is not excluded under § 352), and § 1109 (domestic violence cases: prior acts of domestic violence may be admitted)), preparation for § 402 hearings on the admissibility of scientific evidence under the Kelly/Frye general-acceptance test (People v. Kelly, 17 Cal.3d 24 (1976)), analysis of Crawford confrontation clause objections to laboratory reports, forensic analysis, and crime scene documentation offered as 'business records' or 'public records' (Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004): testimonial hearsay — statements made with the primary purpose of creating a formal statement for use at a later trial — is inadmissible against a criminal defendant unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine), and jury selection preparation including Batson/Wheeler analysis of prosecutorial peremptory challenges for racial or gender-based discrimination (Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258 (1978)) (46–52 min); (2) verdict advisory and Marsden/new trial motion analysis — arrives when the jury returns its verdict — requiring immediate analysis of Cal. Penal Code § 1181 new trial motion grounds (motion for new trial must be filed and heard within 15 days of verdict under § 1182, and the court must hear it before sentencing — grounds include newly discovered evidence, juror misconduct, instructional error, and insufficiency of evidence), assessment of People v. Marsden, 2 Cal.3d 118 (1970) substitution-of-counsel motion grounds for indigent defendants (the defendant may request new appointed counsel by showing that the attorney is not representing the defendant in a capable manner, that the attorney does not understand the facts of the case, or that the defendant-attorney relationship has broken down so severely that the defendant is being denied the right to effective assistance — Marsden hearings are conducted by the court outside the prosecutor's presence), evaluation of any juror misconduct grounds for post-verdict investigation under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 657(2) (a new trial is available when the jury received evidence out of court, when jurors committed misconduct that prejudiced a substantial right of the defendant, or when a juror failed to disclose material information during voir dire — the defense must act within the 15-day § 1182 window to investigate and file), and documentation of all post-verdict investigation steps in contemporaneous billing records as the Strickland performance record for any subsequent habeas petition (44–50 min)); (3) sentencing, Romero motion, and post-conviction advisory — arrives when the court sets the sentencing hearing date — requiring analysis of the California felony sentencing triad under Cal. Penal Code § 1170(b) and the Judicial Council's aggravating and mitigating criteria (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 4.421 and 4.423 — aggravating factors include the crime involved great violence, the victim was particularly vulnerable, the defendant was the leader of a group engaged in criminal activity; mitigating factors include the defendant's lack of a prior record, the crime was committed under unusual circumstances unlikely to recur, and the defendant voluntarily acknowledged wrongdoing before arrest), preparation of a Romero motion to dismiss a prior strike under Cal. Penal Code § 1385 (People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497 (1996): the trial court has discretion to strike or dismiss a prior strike conviction in the furtherance of justice — the Romero motion is briefed and argued at the sentencing hearing, and the court weighs the nature and circumstances of the present offense, the defendant's background and criminal history, and the spirit of the Three Strikes law), identification of any retroactive application of ameliorative sentencing legislation under In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (1965) (ameliorative statutes that reduce criminal punishment apply retroactively to all cases not yet final on appeal — Assembly Bill 124 (2021) creating a presumption in favor of the low term for youth offenders, Assembly Bill 333 (2021) narrowing the Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act enhancement, and Senate Bill 81 (2021) creating a presumption against stacking certain enhancements all require analysis at sentencing for cases where the offense was committed before the effective date of the legislation), and documentation of the arrest date, preliminary examination/indictment date, and verdict/sentencing date as the three Welch temporal anchors anchoring the complete fee reconstruction for CJA voucher submission or § 6200 MFAA arbitration (46–52 min). At 55% untracked: 6 clients × 2 calls × 48 min × 55% = 316.8 min / 60 = 5.28 hours = $1,584–$2,640/year at $300–$500/hr.

How ClaimHour fits criminal defense practice

If you represent criminal defendants in California state courts or federal district courts — with arraignment and preliminary hearing advisory calls arriving when the court posts arraignment dates and § 859 preliminary examination dates on the court's scheduling calendar, § 1538.5 suppression and Pitchess advisory calls arriving when the superior court's law-and-motion calendar sets suppression hearing and in camera review dates, and trial readiness, verdict, and sentencing advisory calls arriving when the court's trial calendar posts readiness conference, verdict, and sentencing hearing milestones — and if your CJA § 3006A vouchers, § 6200 MFAA fee arbitration submissions, and Strickland habeas record must be supported by contemporaneous billing records beginning on the arrest date as the primary Welch anchor and continuing through the sentencing date, with every advisory call documented at task-level granularity sufficient to justify each voucher line item and rebut a § 3006A(d)(3) chief-judge authorization challenge or a Strickland performance-prong habeas claim — ClaimHour was built for that gap.

Get early access

Related questions

How do arraignment and preliminary hearing advisory calls generate billing gaps on the court's arraignment calendar?

Court arraignment and § 859 preliminary examination dates are set by the court's docketing system — the attorney cannot predict or control these calendars. Three call types: initial arraignment, bail, and Brady/evidence-preservation advisory (38–44 min, arriving when arraignment is posted — requires § 1275 bail analysis, Proposition 57 non-violent parole assessment, Trombetta/Youngblood immediate evidence preservation demand, Rule 1.7 conflict analysis for co-defendants, and court continuance calendar monitoring), preliminary examination strategy and Pitchess threshold advisory (40–46 min, arriving when § 859 exam is scheduled — requires Alvarez corpus delicti independent-evidence requirement, Rincon-Pineda record-locking cross-examination preparation, § 1043 Pitchess good-cause threshold analysis, and § 995 legal-sufficiency-of-commitment review), and Brady/Giglio compliance and § 1054 discovery advisory (38–44 min, arriving when prosecution's initial disclosure is received — requires Brady v. Maryland materiality analysis, Giglio witness-credibility disclosure demand, Strickler v. Greene reasonable-probability prejudice standard, and § 1054.1 continuing-duty-to-disclose monitoring). At 55% untracked: 10 clients × 2 calls × 40 min × 55% ≈ 7.33 hours = $2,200–$3,667/year at $300–$500/hr.

How do § 1538.5 suppression and Pitchess advisory calls generate billing gaps on the court's law-and-motion calendar?

The court's law-and-motion calendar governs when suppression hearings and Pitchess in camera reviews occur — the attorney cannot control these dates. Three call types: § 1538.5 Fourth Amendment suppression advisory (42–48 min, arriving when hearing is posted — requires Katz reasonable-expectation-of-privacy analysis, Terry reasonable-articulable-suspicion standard, Gates totality-of-circumstances probable cause, Leon good-faith exception, and Proposition 8 limitation on state exclusionary grounds), Pitchess in camera review advisory (40–46 min, arriving when hearing is posted — requires § 1043(b)(3) Warrick plausible-scenario good-cause showing, § 1045 in-camera disclosure scope, Agurs automatic Brady/Giglio materiality analysis of disclosed complaints, and § 1983 civil litigation record review), and § 995 motion and Kelly/Frye expert advisory (42–48 min, arriving when hearing is posted — requires § 995 legal-sufficiency-of-commitment analysis, Kelly/Frye general-acceptance standard for forensic science, Melendez-Diaz lab-report Confrontation Clause analysis, and Strickland performance documentation). At 55% untracked: 8 clients × 3 calls × 44 min × 55% ≈ 9.68 hours = $2,904–$4,840/year at $300–$500/hr.

How does § 3006A CJA/§ 6200 MFAA interact with the Strickland IAC standard to create Welch temporal anchor documentation requirements?

18 U.S.C. § 3006A requires prior chief-judge authorization for CJA vouchers exceeding $2,500 — making contemporaneous billing records a prerequisite for authorization. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6200 MFAA fee arbitration requires billing records sufficient to justify each line item. Strickland v. Washington requires contemporaneous records documenting what investigation and research was performed to rebut the IAC performance prong. The three Welch temporal anchors for criminal defense billing are: (1) Arrest/initial appearance date (court docket) = primary anchor for the earliest date Strickland-defensible records must be maintained; (2) Preliminary examination/indictment date or § 1538.5 hearing date (court docket) = anchor for pre-trial motion phase advisory call cycle; (3) Verdict/plea/sentencing date (court docket) = anchor closing the complete billing period for CJA voucher or § 6200 fee arbitration. Reconstructed entries after these anchors fail § 3006A reasonableness review and Strickland performance analysis.

How do trial readiness, verdict, and sentencing advisory calls generate billing gaps on the trial calendar?

The court's trial calendar governs when readiness conferences, trial dates, verdicts, and sentencing hearings occur — none of which the attorney controls. Three call types: trial readiness and in limine motion advisory (46–52 min, arriving when readiness conference is posted — requires § 352 prejudice exclusion analysis, § 1101/§ 1108/§ 1109 character evidence rules, Kelly/Frye § 402 hearing preparation, Crawford confrontation clause lab-report analysis, and Batson/Wheeler peremptory challenge audit), verdict and Marsden/new trial motion advisory (44–50 min, arriving when verdict is returned — requires § 1181 new trial grounds within § 1182's 15-day window, Marsden substitution-of-counsel analysis, § 657(2) juror misconduct investigation, and Strickland performance documentation), and sentencing, Romero, and post-conviction advisory (46–52 min, arriving when sentencing is posted — requires § 1170(b) triad analysis, Rules 4.421/4.423 aggravating/mitigating factors, Romero strike-dismissal motion, Estrada retroactive ameliorative legislation analysis, and three-anchor Welch framework: arrest date + preliminary exam/indictment date + verdict/sentencing date). At 55% untracked: 6 clients × 2 calls × 48 min × 55% ≈ 5.28 hours = $1,584–$2,640/year at $300–$500/hr.

Further reading