Q. Why are attorneys refusing to take new cases?
A. The answer is one that is personal to each attorney who has refused to take cases. There is no union or coordinating committee in charge. Most attorneys have said that they are treating the Commonwealth just like they treat any client who does not pay them, they do not take new work.

Q. Is a Union involved?
A. Unlike others who work in the Courts, like probation officers and court officers, court appointed attorneys are not allowed to unionize.

Q. Who is in charge of the refusal to take cases?
A. Small groups of attorneys have met to discuss the new events (not being paid) and what they might do as a result, but there is not any person or organization that is "in charge".

Q. Are there a set of issues most commonly mentioned?
A. Failure to pay attorneys for work they have already done in the last fiscal year (ending 6/30/2003),
Failure to fund FY04 (so that some work done now, which cannot be billed until July 1, 2004, will not be paid for)
The rates of pay for work done keep attorneys on the financial edge,
Hostile policies directed toward court appointed attorneys (e.g. on complex cases, attorneys must work the whole year on cases before they are paid).

Q. Attorneys have not been paid? Can the Commonwealth do that?
A. If an employer does not pay their employees, they can be charged with a crime. The Commonwealth (Governor and Legislature) have done nothing to date to allocate money to pay for debts already incurred. Update: The legislature leadership has told CPCS that they will take up a supplemental budget toward the middle of August.

Q. Attorneys knew about this before the situation was announced, right?
A. No. CPCS abruptly announced on July 18 that they were out of money, without any warning.

Q. Attorneys should have billed throughout the year, so this could not happen. Why did they not do this?
A. Attorneys traditionally collect a legal retainer from private clients, and then bill against that retainer when a significant amount of work has been performed. CPCS policy does not allow attorneys to do this, attorneys must wait until the end of the fiscal year, or when the case is closed, to bill (approx 5% of the cases can be billed quarterly). Forcing attorneys to wait a year for their fee and then abruptly informing them after the year is up that they will not be paid has infuriated many attorneys.

Q. Why did CPCS not let attorneys know this crisis was coming?
A. That is an excellent question. One would assume that the management at CPCS knew about the coming shortfall before their budget was spent. Why they did not communicate that is a question you must ask CPCS management.

Q Do laws have to be changed to allow attorneys to bill as they do the work?
A. No. Attorneys already do all the data entry for time entries for work they do on appointed cases, using a system on the internet called EBill (work attorneys do without any compensation). CPCS management could change this billing policy, and has been asked to change it to allow attorneys to bill the same way they bill their private clients, but CPCS management has refused to seriously consider the matter. This is but one example of the hostile relationship toward bar advocates, by CPCS, which has caused many attorneys to resign.

Q. Are all court appointed attorneys responding the same way?
A. No. Since we have no union or official organization, attorneys are making individual decisions about their non-participation in the program. Some attorneys are resigning from the programs completely, and redirecting their legal practices to other areas; other attorneys are taking their scheduled day in court, but refusing to fill in for other attorneys who refuse to take assignments; a small number of attorneys are "filling in" for attorneys who do not take assignments (in some courts, no one will do "fill in" work, in others, a handfull are filling in); other attorneys are accepting "bail" appointments on their assigned court day; while other attorneys are refusing all appointments, including bails.

Q. If attorneys are unhappy, why not just quit?
A. An attorney cannot quit a case without formally asking the Court for permission to quit. Such permission may be denied by the court, without giving any reason. If an attorney stops doing the work all together, and is replaced by a new attorney, that new attorney has the same "issues". Some attorneys relate that just because there is an ample supply of children willing to work for pennies a day in the world, we should not treat children that way (work them in "sweat" shops).

Q. When will the work stoppages cease?
A. There is no person or organization in charge, so the return to work will be a decision made by individual attorneys. Even if there was a decision made to return to full work, there is no way to communicate such a message, as CPCS does not maintain contact information for attorneys doing this work -- rather they depend on the 13 individual bar advocate programs throughout the states. Newspapers and television are expected to be the major methods of communication to the bar advocates across the state.

Q. If an attorney refuses to handle a bail argument, will the defendant accused of a crime suffer?
A. Usually not (see court report of 8/2/2003). Judges are very reluctant to punish a defendant because he has no representation, and most often have erred on the side of the Constitutional rights of the accused, releasing defendants who would usually be held on bail. Bar Advocates are divided on whether to accept bail only assignments. In many courts, attorneys have handled bail arguments pro bono, that is without any charge for their services.

Q. Are attorneys continuing to receive benefits if they do not take new cases?
A. Attorneys who do this work receive no benefits, whatsoever. Many attorneys are doing some of the work without compensation. Attorneys cannot collect unemployment if they do not do this work.

Q. This is just a small part of what an attorney does, right?
A. That used to be true, but not any more. The rise in caseload and the dramatic decrease in attorneys willing to accept cases will push the workload from 65% before the crisis to full time work in many areas. Some areas are close to not being able to function, as attorneys have left permanently.

Q. Is this a coordinated action to protest low wages?
A. No. Bar advocates have a lawsuit filed to address the issue of inadequate compensation, and that lawsuit is pending in Bristol County. The action is a class action, with certification pending.

Q. If lawyers in another county are not taking new cases, can this be reported on this website?
A. ABSOLUTELY!! Please send an email to the webmaster and provide details of what has occurred. This website will report what has transpired, but cannot be used to recruit or organize actions across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Q. How long has this been going on?
A. The Taunton Youthful Offender list now has one attorney taking cases. All other(s) have permanently resigned. No assignments have been accepted in Taunton District Court from 7/23/2003 through and including 8/1/2003. Other Courts have had some refusals to take new cases.

Q. I heard that the Judges were threatening attorneys. Is that true?
A. There does not seem to be any uniform policy from the bench. There have been reports that some judges have told bar advocates that they would be "taken off the list", but of course the judges do not manage the lists, and have no authority to remove anyone from the lists. Pilgrim Advocates has announced that they will not remove anyone from their list for participating (and that the Plymouth Bar Advocate program shall remain "neutral"). When bar advocates have met with the judge before the session began, and communicated what they planned to do and why, most judges have been sympathetic to the plight of the attorneys. Many judges, including Judge Minehan in Wareham, have called the legislative leadership seeking action to cure the problems facing bar advocates.