Whether the District Court abused its discretion in declining to refer the court-appointed attorney's misconduct to the Chief Judge for an order to show cause

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED This Court has made it clear that it will not interfere with Circuit or District Court's regulation of its own Bar unless the conduct of the Circuit or District Court was irregular or. was flagrantly improper. In Christian Dior Womack's case, the court-appointed attorney, without the Court's authorization, requested and accepted a fee from his indigent client Christian Dior Womack's family members in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (£) and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's CJA Plan, Section V (D). Subsequently, Christian Dior Womack filed a petition to have the court-appointed attorney's misconduct referred to the District Court's chief Judge for issuance of an order to show cause pursuant to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's Local Rules of Civil Procedure 83.6 for violating Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5 and 8.4 (d), as well as Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(E£) and § V (D) of the Court's Revised Plan For Furnishing Representation pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 30064 ( CJA Plan ), the District Court denied the petition and the Third Circuit affirmed. ' The question(s) presented is whether the District Court abused its discretion when it declined to refer the court-appointed attorney's : misconduct to the Chief Judge for an order to show cause upon finding that the court-appointed attorney, without the court's authorization, accepted a fee from his indigent client's family members for represent~ ing Christian Dior Womack, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3C06A (£) and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's Criminal Justice Act Plan, Section V (D) and the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5 and 8.4 (d). ii T A BL E 0 OF c oN T ENT S Question(s) Presented. .