{"id":3807,"date":"2003-07-27T00:55:46","date_gmt":"2003-07-27T04:55:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2003\/07\/27\/update-bar-advocates-boycott-"},"modified":"2011-08-05T15:00:48","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T19:00:48","slug":"update-bar-advocates-boycott-threat-gets-reaction-in-boston","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2003\/07\/27\/update-bar-advocates-boycott-threat-gets-reaction-in-boston\/","title":{"rendered":"Update: Bar Advocates’ Boycott Threat Gets Reaction in Boston"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n


\n

With a court crisis looming, legislators in Massachusetts are promising to make sure that “bar advocates” (court-appointed lawyers for the indigent) are paid in full for work they did during the past fiscal year.  According to an article<\/A> in <\/FONT>The<\/I> Standard-Times<\/I> (New Bedford, MA), captioned <\/FONT>Action to end lawyers’ protest may come soon<\/B><\/I> (by David Kibbe, July 26, 2003), “Legislative leaders indicated yesterday that they would act soon to pay money owed to lawyers for the indigent to stave off a work protest that is threatening to cripple the state court system.”<\/P>
\n

According to the The<\/EM> Standard-Times<\/I> news report, “When the state’s bar advocates submitted their bills for the end of the state’s fiscal year on July 1, they were told the state had no money to pay them because the account for the Committee for Public Counsel Services had been underfunded by $12 million.”  In response, <\/FONT>State Sen. Mark C.W. Montigny, D-New Bedford, declared that Gov. Romney and the Legislature had an obligation to pay the lawyers.<\/P>
\n

<\/P>
\n


\n

“The grievance of these hardworking, underpaid individuals is an accurate one,” Sen. Montigny said. “They are being treated unfairly. At this point, I can’t say I blame them for being fed up, but let’s make sure not one client is injured because of this protest that rightly should be aimed at the governor and the Legislature.” <\/P><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

Additional details can be found in an article published over the weekend by The Taunton Gazette<\/A><\/EM> (by Scott Dolan, 7\/26\/03), and an AP report on Friday in the Boston Globe<\/A><\/EM> (by Ken Maguire, 7\/25\/03).  Both articles note that Massachusetts appointed counsel for the poor are paid from $30 to $39 per hour (third lowest in the nation<\/U>), which often does not cover office overhead. The Staunton Gazette<\/EM> quotes State Rep. James H. Fagan, D-Taunton as saying that the solution to the budget shortfall will rest with Gov. Romney, because none of the legislators will propose a supplemental budget.  “Lawyers who do CPCS work, in my opinion, have been tremendously underpaid for years,” Fagan said. “I’ve always considered it a total embarrassment that the lawyers that take these cases are treated like second-class citizens.”<\/P>
\n

The article also quotes Taunton attorney Thomas E. Workman, Jr., who said he is owed $25,000 for work completed in fiscal year 2003.  According to the Taunton Gazette (emphasis added):<\/P>
\n


\n

Lawyers on the list for court appointment cannot technically go on strike<\/U>, because they are not state employees and not part of a union, [Workman] said. Workman and several other lawyers already had a class-action suit pending against the state petitioning for a pay increase in superior court, when CPCS ran out of money. “I’m not leading this. I’m not a ringleader<\/U>,” Workman said of the work stoppage. Attorney Brian D. Roman was in Taunton District Court yesterday, and said every lawyer there refused court-appointed cases.<\/EM><\/P><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

The AP\/Globe<\/I> piece quotes Michelle Rioux, president of the New Bedford Bar Association, as saying ”We’re receiving e-mails daily from around the state.” She added, “After expenses, I’m probably averaging about $10 per hour.” In Bristol County, 60 lawyers called in on Friday to say they won’t take new cases. <\/P><\/FONT>
\n

My posting<\/A> earlier today (Saturday) explained the potential antitrust liability faced by the bar advocates if they acted jointly to refuse new cases. <\/P>
\n