Dear Brother/Sister in the Bar:

Many of your fellow bar advocates have taken it upon themselves to refuse to accept cases on their assigned duty day. This decision by your fellow bar advocates are taken for a variety of reasons. Over half of the bar advocates have not been paid for work they performed in FY03, and are infuriated by statements from the Legislative leaders that correcting the situation is not a priority.

The low wages paid to bar advocates leaves many of our fellow bar advocates in a situation where they need the meager earnings that a duty day brings in. One cannot imagine any bar advocate who would begrudge a fellow bar advocate performing their duty day, if they are in this dire situation. Many attorneys have evaluated the compensation and timing of that compensation, and concluded that they could continue to earn money in the short term pursuing legal steps for their already assigned clients, and that they will ultimately be assigned clients who are now being "deferred", and thus they see little downside in not accepting cases.

In some courts, a handful of bar advocates are "filling in" for days that were cancelled by their fellow bar advocates. Filling in has been a long standing tradition, as sometimes a fellow bar advocate must cancel a duty day because of an obligation in another Court, an illness, or a family emergency. Filling in is sincerely appreciated, by the bar advocate being "replaced". When a bar advocate refuses to accept new cases, in order to force the Commonwealth to deal with the serious issues and mistreatment of bar advocates as a group, filling in is not a favor, but rather blunts the effectiveness of that attorney's "statement", and the sacrifice of the cancelling duty attorney.

Accepting a "fill in" duty day to replace a member who refuses to accept assignments is not doing your fellow bar advocate any favor, in fact it often offends that bar advocate. There has been no "strike" vote, and in fact bar advocates are not allowed to organize. In courts where a substantial majority of the attorneys have reached a like mind, and are not accepting cases, the existence of a handful of "fill in" advocates would seem to prolong bringing the matter to a prompt conclusion, and may be seen by your fellow bar advocates as profiting personally while damaging the effectiveness of a fellow bar advocate.

Of course, the first time a bar advocate "fills in", that fill in is likely requested by the bar advocate program without informing the fill in of the reason for the fill in. If asked, the bar advocate program coordinator will likely either refuse to answer your question (that tells you why you are being asked to fill in), or will tell you the truth, that being that you are filling in for a bar advocate who has refused cases.

Some of your fellow bar advocates are owed five figures for work done last year. While you may have been fully paid, please consider the plight of your fellow bar advocates, and assist them in resolving the serious issues that are now facing these folks (who by virtue of not being paid, are facing questions of how to pay their mortgages) by considering how you can help to resolve the serious issues now facing about half of your fellow bar advocates.

Your fellow bar advocates will of course respect the personal and informed decision you make in this matter. Thank you for your careful consideration of your role in bringing this problem to a prompt resolution.

News of the refusal to accept cases is being carried in the mainstream press, television coverage, and can be obtained at a website "www.bristolcpcs.org".