{"id":3973,"date":"2005-07-23T18:20:02","date_gmt":"2005-07-23T22:20:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2005\/07\/23\/does-bar-advocate-irresponsib"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:57:33","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:57:33","slug":"does-bar-advocate-irresponsible-lawyer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2005\/07\/23\/does-bar-advocate-irresponsible-lawyer\/","title":{"rendered":"does Bar Advocate = Irresponsible Lawyer?"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

\n

The last thing I wanted to do this weekend is to break my July respite from <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
commentary in order to focus on a group of lawyers who are again making <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the <\/FONT>profession look bad.  But, this is too important and urgent to let slide:   <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n
<\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
The majority of lawyers taking assigned counsel criminal cases to represent <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the indigent in Massachusetts — called “bar advocates<\/EM>” — are poised <\/FONT>to <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
continue their illegal and <\/FONT>unethical<\/FONT> joint boycott of new cases, in order <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
to put more pressure on State Government to increase their fees.  That’s<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
despite the fact that each House of the Mass. Legislature (under the gun<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
for the third summer in a row from coordinated statewide refusals to take <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
new cases<\/FONT>) passed bills this week that would raise fees significantly — <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
amounting to an 81<\/EM>% increase in the past two years.<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/FONT><\/EM><\/DIV>
\n

\n
See<\/EM> SouthCoastToday <\/FONT><\/FONT>article<\/FONT><\/A> (July 23, 2005); AP\/Boston Herald<\/EM> <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
article<\/A><\/FONT> (July 22, 2005); <\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT>our post<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A> June 9th.<\/FONT> <\/FONT><\/EM><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
\"wolf  Click to see the <\/EM>full story<\/EM><\/A>, with extensive discusion and <\/FONT>excerpts <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
from <\/FONT>many prior posts on this topic.  I hope you’ll take a look and <\/FONT>— <\/FONT>especially <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
if you live in Massachusetts or care about the image of the legal profession — <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
take a public stand.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
p.s.<\/STRONG><\/EM> I’ve just figured out why they’re called “bar advocates” <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
rather than just assigned counsel — their #1 priority seems <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
to be advocating for the bar, for themselves.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
afterthought<\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/EM> (July 25, 2005): At MyShingle<\/EM> you can read Carolyn Elefant’s <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Court Appointed Work Is Not Supposed To Be A Full Time Job!<\/FONT><\/A> (July 23, 2005),<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
responding to bar advocate opposition to a cap of 1400<\/EM> hours per year per assigned <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
counsel. <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
update <\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/EM>(July 26, 2005): MACAA activist Deborah Sirotkin Butler writes to the Cape Cod Times<\/A><\/EM> <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
that <\/FONT>the Massachusetts House “hid pay cuts and punitive systemic changes in a fake raise <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
slammed down by a cap. The actions of the House of representative were truly those <\/FONT>of a <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
wolf in sheep’s clothing.” (Letter to the Editor, July 23, 2005)   She’s talking about capping <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
total bar advocate hours <\/FONT>at <\/FONT>1400<\/EM> per year and hiring public defenders to handle some of the district <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
court cases (moving <\/FONT>Massachusetts toward a more balanced indigent defense system, which <\/FONT>would <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
comport <\/FONT>with national standards). See <\/FONT>will MACAA react like a guild to indigent defense report?<\/FONT><\/A><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
p.s.<\/STRONG><\/EM> (3 PM July 26, 2005): According to the <\/FONT>Overworked Counties Chart<\/FONT><\/A> posted at the <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Bristol <\/FONT>County bar advocate website, the average billed by each Bar Advocate in FY2004 <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
was <\/FONT>$33,147.    In the 6 counties where it’s hardest to find bar advocates and panel members <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
have the highest workloads, the average dollar amount billed by each bar advocate in <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
FY2004 was $37,694.   <\/FONT>Under the bills passed by both houses of the Legislature, a limit <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
of 1400 hours per year would yield $70,000 for the lowest level of <\/FONT>cases; $84,000 for major <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
felonies; and $140,000 for murder cases. <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
update<\/STRONG><\/EM><\/FONT> (July 27, 2005):  A Mass. high court justice refuses to order the Legislature <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
to raise assigned counsel fees.  See “<\/FONT>Lawyers granted time on pay dispute<\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/A>,” <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
by Dan Ring, Springfield Republican<\/EM> (July 27, 2005). Excerpt:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
“An associate justice on the state’s highest court yesterday said <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the state Legislature should receive more time to approve higher <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
hourly pay for private lawyers for the poor and resolve a crisis that <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
started last year in Hampden County. <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
“During a conference on a lawsuit that seeks increased hourly pay <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
for the court-appointed lawyers, Associate Justice John M. Greaney <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
also said it was unlikely the Supreme Judicial Court would order <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
lawmakers to appropriate money to settle the dispute since legislators <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
are making progress.”  <\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
update<\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/EM> (July 29, 2005): Yesterday, the Massachusetts legislature passed and sent<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
to the Governor an assigned counsel bill that followed closely the House version <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
of assigned counsel fee reform.  “<\/FONT>Legislature OKs raises for criminal defenders<\/FONT><\/A>, <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Daily News Tribune<\/EM>, by Emelie Rutherford, July 29, 2005).  The bill, which was signed <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
into law today by Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey (Gov. Mitt, Romney is on vacation) will:<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
\"tiny raise fees retroactive to July 1 from $37.50 to $61.50 per hour to between <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
$50 and $100 per hour, with a cap of 1400 hours (The cap would apply <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
only to new cases accepted after 1,400 hours are reached.) <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"tiny authorize hiring of 10 new on-staff public defenders (to handle criminal <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
matters) <\/FONT><\/FONT>for each of the state’s district <\/FONT><\/DIV><\/FONT>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
\"tiny require improved procedures for confirming that defendants are indigent <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and the formation of<\/FONT> a commission to study decriminalizing some acts.  <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
In a <\/FONT>Boston Herald<\/EM> article<\/FONT><\/A>, <\/FONT><\/FONT>John Salsberg, co-chairman of Suffolk Lawyers For Justice <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Inc., is quoted:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
  “Finally, the hard work of court-appointed attorneys is being recognized. It is <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
unfortunate that it took a crisis in the court system to get to this point.” <\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
Salsberg’s organization has been at the forefront of the concerted bar advocate boycotts — <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
thus <\/FONT>creating the judicial crisis he decries. (prior post<\/A>)<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
“tinyredcheck”  Meanwhile, at their <\/FONT>Yahoo! ListServe<\/FONT><\/A>, assigned counsel are congratulating themselves  for having the “courage” to refuse new cases, and especially thanking the [first concerted boycotters] <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
in the “western part of the state for setting the tone and example for so much <\/FONT>longer than any”.  <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
They’re also <\/FONT><\/FONT>complaining that MACAA isn’t getting enough credit.<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
I would like to congratulate the assigned counsel who took my advice to heart two years ago and<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
concentrated their efforts on getting legislative, judicial and bar association support.  However<\/EM>, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
because the threat and reality of more boycotting were never rejected by the bar advocate leaders,<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
I am reluctant to praise their efforts.   I have always opposed the tactics<\/EM> of the bar advocates, not<\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
their goal of inceased fees.  As I said in September 2003: <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n
The Bar Advocates need to find a way to pursue their legitimate goals without violating <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
their ethical obligations or the antitrust laws.  They <\/FONT><\/A><\/B>should continue their efforts to <\/FONT><\/FONT>draft<\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/A> <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
improved legislation and seek <\/FONT>sponsors.   But lobbying in public while building the <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
infrastructure for the next boycott is <\/FONT>not acceptable conduct. <\/STRONG> <\/STRONG> Achieving their longterm <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
goals, with lasting results, will surely <\/FONT>come from persuasion, not coercion or collusion.<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
They need to create strong judicial, legislative and executive branch support for their fee <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
demands, while reaching out to other advocate groups, and earning the public’s respect <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and trust.   <\/FONT><\/DIV><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
The apparent belief among assigned counsel in Massachusetts that they cannot achieve fair <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
fee levels without coordinated coercion bodes ill for the future.<\/FONT>  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
update<\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/EM> (Aug. 8, 2005)<\/FONT> <\/FONT><\/FONT>Champion Magazine<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A>, the journal of the National association of Criminal <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Defense Lawyers, has an article in its August edition, entitled “Lawyers on Strike — Beware the <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Antitrust Laws,” by Malia Brink, which is now (ironically) posted at the Bristol County Bar <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Advocates website, <\/FONT>here<\/FONT><\/A>.<\/FONT>  <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
in the misty day
no window can be seen…
a prison
<\/DIV><\/FONT>
\n

Kobayashi ISSA<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/A>, translated by D.G. Lanoue<\/FONT><\/P><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The last thing I wanted to do this weekend is to break my July respite from commentary in order to focus on a group of lawyers who are again making the profession look bad.  But, this is too important and urgent to let slide:   The majority of lawyers taking assigned counsel criminal cases to represent the indigent […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2926],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3973","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pre-06-2006"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-125","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3973","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3973"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3973\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13114,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3973\/revisions\/13114"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3973"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3973"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3973"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}