Boston Judge Dismisses Over 120 Cases Because There Aren't Enough Public Defense Attorneys
After a pay dispute led to a work stoppage in late May, courts in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, dismissed cases of indigent defendants who had no legal representation for 45 days.

Boston Municipal Court Chief Justice Tracy-Lee Lyons dismissed over 120 cases on Tuesday after a work stoppage among public defense attorneys in Suffolk County, Massachusetts. Defendants were released from charges ranging from traffic violations to assault.
In Massachusetts, a judge is required under the Lavallee protocol to release a defendant from custody if they haven't had an attorney for seven days, and must drop a case if the defendant hasn't had an attorney for 45 days, according to CBS News.
"This case will be dismissed without prejudice," Lyons said for each case, and noted that all fines and fees would be waived. Lyons took the unprecedented action after hearing from Suffolk County public defenders that they were unable to find the defendants an attorney.
Suffolk County provides a combination of public defenders and court-appointed attorneys, called bar advocates, for indigent defendants. Bar advocates usually take on about 80 percent of the county's cases, but a dispute over hourly pay led to a work stoppage and a shortage of available defense attorneys at the end of May. The work stoppage has caused more than 1,300 people to lack representation in court as of late June. In early July, the court was forced to release defendants from custody. Tuesday marked the first time the Lavallee protocol has been invoked to drop cases outright.
Prosecutors' objections to the dismissals—even in cases involving alleged assaults and domestic violence—were ultimately unsuccessful. The Suffolk County district attorney's office said in a statement following the unprecedented hearing that "many more [case dismissals are] expected in coming days and weeks, [and] present a clear and continuing threat to public safety."
Meanwhile, Democratic Gov. Maura Healey stated that both the public safety and due process issues need to be resolved, and urged defense attorneys to get back to court while the Massachusetts legislature works on a resolution.
Bar advocates in the state are among the lowest paid in New England, receiving $65 per hour in Massachusetts compared to nearly double or more in nearby states, including Rhode Island ($112 per hour), New Hampshire ($125 per hour), and Maine ($150 per hour). Private practice work can yield $300 per hour. But, despite the stoppage, the 2026 fiscal year budget signed on July 4 by Healy didn't include an increase in hourly pay.
"The dismissal of cases today under the Lavallee protocols is what needs to be done for those individuals charged with crimes but with no lawyer to vindicate their constitution rights," Shira Diner, a Boston University School of Law lecturer and past president of the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, told the Associated Press. "It is, however, not a solution to the deep crisis of inadequate pay for bar advocates. Until there are enough qualified lawyers in courts to fulfill the constitutional obligation of the right to counsel, this crisis will only intensify."
Funding public defenders is an ongoing nationwide issue, at both the state and federal levels. Without adequate pay to attract and retain legal talent, states and counties struggle to provide constitutionally mandated counsel to criminal defendants. Understaffed attorneys who provide indigent defense work may lack time to provide effective counsel due to excessive caseloads. And while defendants wait to meet with an attorney, many—about 70 percent of the jail population—will stay in jail pretrial.
The Fifth and Sixth Amendments guarantee that criminal defendants have the right to an attorney. These rights are a pivotal part of due process and provide a strong check on government prosecutorial power. While public safety is a high priority for the criminal justice system, it must equally prioritize the due process rights of Americans.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"After a pay dispute led to a work stoppage in late May, courts in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, dismissed cases of indigent defendants who had no legal representation for 45 days."
So, where were the MA ACLU lawyers or the Harvard law professors at?
For that matter, where were all those retired DA's, judges and public pretenders?
Don't they know these defendants will be released if they do not have legal representation?
Oh, wait...
"So, where were the MA ACLU lawyers or the Harvard law professors at?
For that matter, where were all those retired DA's, judges and public pretenders?"
Maybe at an exclusive club bitching and moaning about how Trump is running all the murders, rapists, and thieves out of the country?
It seems there is a lot of pro bono work available.
Forcing people to work for free is communist. Are you Stalinist or Trotskyite?
There are a lot of charities that need help. Are you stepping up or just bitching about others not stepping up?
So, where were the MA ACLU lawyers or the Harvard law professors at?
Do you know what happens when you rely on private charity to provide services to the poor? The poor that get those services are the ones lucky enough to have wealthier people with extra time on their hands, and that care, show up to help them. Everyone else has to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Or, you know, go to jail when they don't have a lawyer to defend them from bullshit charges.
Massholes being Massholes
This is happening in Massachusetts? I’m shocked:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton
I guess the victims are left without justice then.
Reason always takes the side of criminals.*
*yet to be adjudicated in this case
I normally take the anti-crime side, but all the blame in this case belongs to the State legislature. Pay the public defenders what they get in neighboring States! (2) But maybe some pro-criminal legislators are secretly behind this standoff. They might figure that letting criminals go is a feature, not a bug.
When neighboring NH (a fiscally conservative state if ever there was one) and nearby ME (not exactly the wealthiest place in the country) pay 2 to 3 times more than MA, the fault is clearly with the legilature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Or.... better yet, make for a climate that has fewer arrests and you save the court time, lawyer time (on both sides) etc.
Nah! Its funner watching this s--t show
I don't care what the pay is in neighboring states. Pay them what you pay the prosecutors.
Prosecutors are revenue generators.
The Left doesn't understand labor markets any better than the Right.
Pay the public defenders what they get in neighboring States!
I have an even better suggestion. Pay public defenders the same as the prosecutors and make sure they have comparable amounts of time to be thorough with each case.
The system requires both prosecutors and defense attorneys because its adversarial nature is necessary to find justice in the most reliable way. Choosing between a victim (or their family) having to watch the guilty go free and a person being convicted of a crime they did not commit is a false choice.
The prosecutors have two wear two hats. They are not supposed to even try the case if they think there is not enough evidence or justice wouldn't be served.
Right Karen Reed?
I don't see how that's two hats. Do cops wear two hats because they are not supposed to arrest people in the first place if there isn't probable cause?
Really?
$65/hr to tell the crooks to take the deal?
And the problem with $65/hour is???
Government is subject to labor markets just like the private sector is. Neither the Left nor the Right understand this.
Would there be a constitutional issue with requiring lawyers to take one or two indigent clients for every ten paying ones?
You know, tax the rich, but time not money?
Isn't that what pro bono lawyers do?
Obviously there are bigger pay checks available becoming unlawful public defenders appointed to illegal criminals providing the extra level unconstitutional due process that the extreme leftists America hating judges are going outside of their authority to enforce.
Once again the American people are left less safe by democrat partisan hacks.
It's the Republicans that don't want to fund programs that keep kids on the straight and narrow.... then don't fund programs for courts and prisons to deal with the result.... Then bitch about it and blame it on everyone else.
I'm pretty sure that in at least some states the judge can just grab any practicing trial lawyer and say "you're now representing this guy."
Yes. It constitutes slavery. Or communism.
Putting aside the whole work for free thing, realize that lawyers are not all interchangeable. Do you really want a lawyer who specializes in corporate law defending your your DUI case? Or the ambulance -chaser on TV standing up for you in your DV case?
The legislatures could stop making everything illegal.
I cant make a pun from this comment.
That would work.
HEAVEN forfend! That would be bomb-throwin' arnychism!
Yeah, like domestic violence and assault....
Wait!
How many states give free legal aid to illegals again?
Hopefully all of them
It is the responsibility of the government to provide public defenders. If the government under funds that effort, this is what happens.
Keeping in mind that $65/hr amounts to over $135k per year on a 40hr/wk-52 wk/year work schedule.
They ain't exactly poor.
No, but you can't force them to work either.
Pro bono work for indigent defendants could be made a condition of licensure.
No it can't be. That would be slavery.
Neighboring States pay the same work $100/hour or more. Hiring incompetent defenders at minimum wage runs up more costs in the appeats courts.
How much, in tuition alone, is 3 years of law school? Making $135k a year in a city like Boston wouldn't leave a lot of money to pay back student loans.
If anything, pay in Boston should be much MORE than in Providence or Manchester or Concord, all much less expensive cities.
Subtract health care for a family - according to google about $32K/year.
Then there are expenses, travel to and from court etc.
Then there are office expenses - computers, printers, phone, copier etc. $5K?
Then you need office space... 30-80 per square foot per year.
Lets say 400 square feet - shared secretary - probably $50 so $20K
Also, you won't get paid for holidays, vacation, or sick leave (5-6 weeks).
So... 120K - 32 - 5 - 20 = $63K.... in Boston.
That's like $34K in Raleigh NC
No it isn't. Some rent-seeking legislators got a judge to say the government "must" provide defenders. That move makes all manner of bigoted bills easier to pass with someone else footing the bill for those defenders and some pelf and boodle for good measure.
This comment makes negative sense. The legislators *are* the government; having the government foot the bill is the opposite of having someone else foot the bill.
Or was that suppose to be satire? Can I get a public defender against Poe's Law?
Yes the rent seeking legislator was James Madison, in 1789. The right to counsel in a criminal case is explicitly mentioned in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. You might try reading it some time.
Well, to be fair, the 6th Amendment doesn't say that the government must provide that counsel if the defendant can't afford one on their own. The SC just correctly decided that the 6th Amendment guarantee to counsel doesn't mean anything in practical terms for people that can't afford an attorney, unless they are provided with one.
Vanderbilt official on camera admits hiding DEI practices.
https://x.com/townhallcom/status/1948057680871886969?s=46&t=pOghkxSbQl2pg4CLby5nCA
"We are heavily supported by federal funding...[so] we're not advertising diversity and inclusion lectures."
"We're flying under the radar..."
She also doesn't know who her Senator is.
"Defendants were released from charges ranging from traffic violations to assault."
They are dismissing assault charges without prejudice because the public defenders refuse to work?
This won't have any negative consequences whatsoever, will it?
Reminder to self: Stay the hell away from Boston.
It's not the public defenders. It is the bar advocates. These are private attorneys who "volunteer" to be appointed by the court to defend indigent defendants. These attorneys are now saying they don't agree to be appointed because they aren't being paid enough. Public defenders are still working, but there are more indigent defendants than the public defender can effectively defend so not all defendants get a public defender. It is right there in the article if you read it. 80% of cases get assigned to these private attorneys. Without them there aren't enough lawyers to take the cases.
That is in some ways worse.
That or too many moronic "cases" for the existing supply of lawyers to take. Perhaps repealing a couple thousand of the more idiotic usurpations might help.
No, your reminder should be to handle justice yourself because MA won't do so.
Vigilanteism is bad...but better than this.
That's the irony of this. Those stealing from business owners get off with no charges, but the business owners aren't provided free attorneys so would get charged for retaliating.
Some justice.
Boston's homicide rate is one of the lowest in the US among large cities.
I note again that it is thoroughly documented that the Sixth Amendment, as enacted, meant the right to hire an attorney, if one could find an attorney willing to represent you for what you could afford to pay. It was not the right to have an attorney provided, though early Congresses did also pass legislation providing for government-paid defense attorneys in federal capital cases.
Conditioning a civil right based on how much money one has is antithetical to the concept of a "right".
You are free to pay for their defense. There is no right to taxpayer funds doc retard.
Now, now. She can pay for their defense after she's done paying off my web press. After all, where's my freedom of the press if it's conditioned on me having enough money to buy one?
Well, I say after she's done paying for the web press. But of course I mean after she's done paying for my temple, too. How can I freely exercise my religion if I don't have a proper temple to Πλοῦτος?
Don't forget the implication for those Second Amendment rights.
You are wrong (again)
SCOTUS: Gideon v. Wainwright 1963
Courts are full of rules - to pass the bar you must show you know the rules. It would be unfair for the average person to know the rules or get beat over the head with them during his/her case.
Sorry if punishing people, whether they are guilty or not has gotten harder for you.
That the Warren Junta unanimously issued an opinion in contradiction to both precedent and the Constitution does not actually change what the Constitution requires. It simply documents the junta's persistent unconstitutional abuse of authority.
Jeeze, I hate it when you're right.
Libertarians think that poor people are losers who don't deserve to live. At least the commenters here think that.
Bertolt Brecht and Kurt Weill actually wrote an opera about a libertarian heavenly place where not being able to pay a debt was a death penalty offense.
Yeah I would like defendants to have legal representation in our kangaroo courts but it's not a constitutional mandate that the taxpayer pay for it. Trump's golf course assassin has invoked his right to represent himself and lawyers on every side are shitting their pants. I don't deny that it will be a shit show but but I think think the old school libertarian view is go ahead on. At least it will produce epic comedy.
Why would anyone shit themselves because a looney wants to represent himself? I don't see the problem with that. Although, yeah, the comedy is going to be epic
A simple straightforward solution: No government attorneys. All prosecutors and public defenders are hired per case. Do it by bid. No case can go forward until both prosecution and defense lawyers are hired.
Or pay prosecutors and public defenders from the same budget, with a similar bidding process. An easy prosecution or defense case would attract the most bidders and cheapest prices, while the opposite side would have to offer the most to get a lawyer. The two sides would probably balance out.
The biggest objection will be that lawyers would have a severe conflict of interest from being defense and prosecution lawyers in different cases at the same time, or on different days. Hey, aren't lawyers supposed to be neutral dispassionate officers of the court who can be appointed pro bono and without much choice? After all, they lose half their cases and bounce right back.
"Do it by bid. "
That could easily make the fee $200/hour or more. Free markets cost taxpayers a lot of money.
Here's a better idea: have them work for their respective State Bar. They're exempted from their annual bar dues, and their salaries are paid from the bar dues of private lawyers/firms.
The bar dues would likely need to significantly increase, but say you've got 10,000 licensed attorneys paying $2,000/yr in dues, you could easily fund the public defender's office with that. You could pay 250 attorneys (who can't find/don't want private practice) $60K a year to do 6A criminal defense with that, and have plenty left over for support staff.
An even simpler solution would be to require the accused to pay for the defense legal services they want. Since when was poverty an excuse for, well, ANYTHING? Charity or time payments with interest can certainly fill any gap that needs filling! This "crisis" is just another manufactured issue to benefit the Fraternal Brotherhood of Ambulance Chasers.
Ambulance Chasers implies civil law. We're talking about criminal law.
It's different. It's literally different under the explicit text of the Constitution itself.
I know that but couldn't resist the dig at their nickname. On the other hand, how do you know that they don't chase ambulances in their spare time to enhance their incomes?
Who cares if they do. It's irrelevant to the conversation.
The issue is that there's little to no market value for indigent criminal defense. But we guaranteed it under 6A - probably, along with 8A, the ONLY genuine and legitimate entitlements in this nation - so we have to find a solution for it.
Letting all the bad guys go obviously isn't one. The taxpayers paying a lawyer more than the value of the job he's doing isn't one either.
You've heard my 8A solutions before - modern tech-oriented prison reform.
This is my 6A solution. Give it to the Bar. They control the licensing, let them be responsible for providing public defense. They have the ability and framework to do it. The indigent accused can't give you what he doesn't have, and it's not like we can turn him into a indentured servant or villein. We give it to the bar, and we put the onus on the legal community to serve the Constitution they're professionally bound to protect. They won't like the higher bar fees, but who cares. It's not like they can't pay them. Or come to work for the Bar doing public defense.
Let me see if i got this right.
Step 1: guarantee every defendant has a right to an attorney and if they are broke the gov must give them one
Step 2: Gov pays their attorneys shit, slashes staff
Step 3: let all the criminals go
Do i have it right?
Or. we could, you know, simplify the law so that nobody needs attorneys any more. For anything. Because it's not a technical discipline any more, just common sense.
"Repeal" is the exact technical term.
Amen! And while we're at it, we could decriminalize all human activities that do not intentionally or negligently harm other humans.
After light beer was made a federal felony by the Jones Five&Ten law, courts were likewise swamped with "criminals" from 1929 though 33. Bargain days became a thing as roomfuls of these "dangerous felons" pled guilty in exchange for light fines, time served or other token sentences. But it suffices to break anyone's heart to think of a bunch of white-collar liars having to slave at paper shuffling for a mere $65 an hour. What stops them from crossing the state line, thereby getting paid more of other people's money?
"What stops them from crossing the state line, thereby getting paid more of other people's money?"
Whatever your business is, you are being paid by other people's money. Your resentment is hypocritical.
So Autumn, do you see now why we can't give additional hearings to 20 million illegal aliens?
Doesn't change the fact that they have an absolute right to such hearings. If you don't like that, start a movement to repeal the Bill of Rights.
I don't think people have a problem with the hearings. What they have a problem with is this asinine notion that their physical presence is required for one.
There's no reason we can't work with our allies in Latin America on this subject and, say, help them set up a video camera and a display screen in some concrete room in CECOT. We can round up and warehouse the illegals there, and they can all get their hearings via remote appearance, one at a time.
Due process protected, and the illegals are out of country. And they're not obligated to stay in CECOT. If they'd like to self-deport back to their country of origin, we'll facilitate that. It's win/win/win.
Unless your definition of "winning" is millions of illegals flooding America's streets and cities. Is that your definition chaaaarlie?
The Sixth Amendment requires that a defendant be able to confront witnesses against him/her in criminal trials. No exceptions. Now, most immigration proceedings aren't criminal trials, because it isn't a crime to be in the US illegally. And indeed many immigration appeals are done by paperwork.
Warehousing people costs money.
Other countries might accept a Safe Third Country status for asylum applicants. Canada has such an agreement. Mexico has offered one. But Mexico is demanding in return that the US help IT to deal with ITS illegal immigrant problem, an end to the economic sanctions that are driving some of the illegal immigration, and millions of work visas (not even permanent resident visas) for the millions of Mexicans now working illegally in the US. The Biden Administration might have accepted that offer but Trump demanded that the Congress kill even Sen. Lankford's even more modest reform. The Trump crowd are just racists who want less immigration, period, which is why they are expelling not just criminals but even people here legally (and even a few US citizens).
The Sixth Amendment requires that a defendant be able to confront witnesses against him/her in criminal trials.
Yea. And there's no reason that can't be done from a concrete cell with a video camera and a display screen somewhere in the remote regions of El Salvador. "Confront witnesses" doesn't mean stare them in the face from across the room. It means you get to challenge their testimony and evidence.
That does not require physical courtroom presence. And if you think it does, I'll remind you that you pinkos PROVED it didn't by giving us that little COVID experiment to adapt to. Which we did.
Warehousing people costs money.
Yea, that orange guy made a pretty sweet deal with that CECOT guy for those costs. *high five*
Other countries might accept a Safe Third Country status for asylum applicants.
Who really cares what "other countries might accept." They'll accept what we TELL them to accept. Including all its criminals being returned to them. They don't get to make demands. They're in no position whatsoever to.
The Trump crowd are just racists
womp womp.
Keep raising straw men, Vernon, and finalize the destruction of your last shred of credibility. The problem is not a lack of resources to hold 20 million hearings. The problem is the idiotic laws that make 20 million people "illegal" in the first place. If xenophobic racists did not allow power-hungry politicians to make productive and peaceable visitors to the United States a hot button political issue, the vast majority of these "illegals" would be earning a good living doing jobs Americans born here refuse to do, benefitting all of us! The few aliens who commit crimes while visiting here would then be charged with those crimes, convicted, punished and sent back out of the country with the Bill of Rights totally satisfied.
The problem is the idiotic laws that make 20 million people "illegal" in the first place.
No, the problem is that 20 million people come here and refuse to obey those laws, idiotic as you may believe them. To say nothing of how they refuse to assimilate into our society and its culture and traditions, which they claim is the whole reason they wanted to come here in the first place but obviously isn't.
productive and peaceable visitors to the United States
When's the last time a burglar broke into your home and made you breakfast, MWA?
doing jobs Americans born here refuse to do
Ahh, the Democrats never fail to tilt their hand when it comes to how badly they want their slaves.
So, AT, you insist on joining in on the straw man here? If everyone ignored idiotic laws and refused to vote for the power-hungry politicians who promote them to enhance their power maybe politicians would stop pushing idiotic laws. There is (again) zero evidence that more than a tiny fraction of immigrants violate any laws except the immigration laws, so that enhances the "idiotic" status of immigration laws. And, as usual, your dislike of non-assimilants does not justify illegalizing them.
If everyone ignored idiotic laws and refused to vote for the power-hungry politicians who promote them to enhance their power maybe politicians would stop pushing idiotic laws.
Yea, but they don't. Guess they want the idiotic laws. Democracy!
There is (again) zero evidence that more than a tiny fraction of immigrants violate any laws except
I'm going to go ahead and stop you right there.
And, as usual, your dislike of non-assimilants does not justify illegalizing them.
It's not my "dislike" that does that. It's the fact that border jumpers are, in fact, criminal aliens.
"It is, however, not a solution to the deep crisis of inadequate pay for bar advocates. Until there are enough qualified lawyers in courts to fulfill the constitutional obligation of the right to counsel, this crisis will only intensify."
Nah, you'll be the first ones replaced with AI.
Check out DoNotPay sometime. They had a rough rollout, but are now showing vastly improved success rates in hypothetical criminal defense (not meaning the AI "defense attorney" won - but that it didn't screw up anywhere on a jurisprudential level).
Public defenders are like fast food cashiers. The service they provide is simply not worth the price they demand to do it. So, they'll be replaced with tech soon enough. That little kiosk where you order your Big Mac will soon be the same one where you enter your plea bargain.
Hilarious. The Constitution demands real legal counsel.
If AI can deliver a real article, worthy of publishing on Reason (or even professional journals), why can't it deliver real legal counsel?
Heck, a criminal trial frankly seems pedestrian. In fact, I just ran it through ChatGPT (and that's not even a true legal AI) and was genuinely surprised at how accurate it was in its responses. "I'm going to pretend to be a criminal defendant. I'll also play the role of prosecutor and judge, being somewhat hostile (but not unprofessional) to the defendant. You be my defense counsel. Let's start at arraignment. It's a petty larceny case."
And I genuinely put it through the paces. Explained what the options are. I went with not guilty. It discussed disclosures, objections, motions, pre-trial conferencing, and judge rulings. Went through voir dire. Did pre-emptory challenges on both sides. Openings, direct, cross, rest - and then, amazingly, ChatGPT strongly recommended NOT to put the client up as a defense witness (which was smart) even though I strenuously indicated I wanted to, and gave me argument against it. Got a verdict, did a sentencing hearing, considered post-trial options (which it determined weren't worth pursuing - and I agreed with it). I then rewrote and asked for an excessively harsh sentence, and it gave all the right responses (motion to reconsider, appeals, post-conviction relief, etc.).
Charlie boy, the tech is HERE. It may not be perfected yet, but an AI public criminal defense attorney is VERY within the realm of possibility. I mean, what's your argument? Ineffective assistance of counsel? Do you really think it can't defend against a Strickland argument? (I challenged it to, and it presented a compelling argument.)
Now, granted, that was just me playing with ChatGPT for an hour. But I even asked it to argue that AI is IAC. This was its most compelling counterargument: "The argument that AI is inherently ineffective risks being outdated as AI capabilities advance."
That's valid. But I doubt very highly if it's the be-all, end-all.
This is coming charlie. And I think it's very arguable in 2025 what the term "real legal counsel" means.
Oh, and here's the AI's argument, just in case you were curious:
In recent years, the American criminal justice system has faced a growing crisis: overburdened public defenders struggling under crushing caseloads, limited resources, and insufficient state funding. As many defenders are forced to decline cases or provide minimal representation, defendants’ constitutional right to effective counsel is increasingly at risk. Amid this challenge, artificial intelligence (AI) emerges as a promising alternative—offering the potential to deliver consistent, data-driven, and accessible legal defense. While critics argue that AI’s lack of human judgment makes it inherently ineffective, this view risks becoming outdated as AI capabilities rapidly advance. Drawing on successes in complex fields like surgery and engineering, AI may soon—or already—navigate legal advocacy with precision and reliability rivaling or exceeding human attorneys. AI defense might not only supplement but, in many cases, surpass traditional public defense, ensuring fairer outcomes for the accused in an overtaxed system.
Care to rebut the robot?
It will be interesting to see how the conflict between requiring an official government license to practice law and the right of the accused to get legal advice from an AI source under the Sixth Amendment will play out. Since the accused also has the right to represent herself without being a member of the Bar. And where in the Constitution does it say that you cannot practice Law, or Medicine, or Engineering without permission from the government?
and the right of the accused to get legal advice from an AI source under the Sixth Amendment will play out. Since the accused also has the right to represent herself without being a member of the Bar.
I don't see how there will be a conflict there. Lawyers are already using AI as a source. They're not relying exclusively on it (or, at least, they shouldn't be). Don't see why a judge would have a problem with a pro se doing the same thing, so long as he properly waived his right to counsel. It's not like the pro se isn't still running his own show.
And where in the Constitution does it say that you cannot practice Law
It doesn't. But in law, it doesn't believe that 6A will be guaranteed by Donnie Defendant being "represented" by Homeless Henry he found panhandling outside of the courthouse and asked to be his counsel of record.
Licensing them gives better 6A protection.
Does anyone else find it ironic that Mass has a shortage of lawyers, of all things? Just goes to show what price fixing can do, even when the actual supply is abundant.
There's no shortage of lawyers in Mass - or Boston - just a shortage of lawyers willing to work for peanuts.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Nowhere else do libertarians claim that the right to have something implies that someone else has to pay for your enjoyment of that right. Can we at least hold libertarians to a consistent application of principles when no one else seems to understand the concept? Your right to retain counsel does not impose a burden on me to pay the premium rate for lawyers!
Which is why they're not paid premium rates, and why they're so upset.