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.
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.
Really?
$65/hr to tell the crooks to take the deal?
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.
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!
How many states give free legal aid to illegals again?
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.
Neighboring States pay the same work $100/hour or more. Hiring incompetent defenders at minimum wage runs up more costs in the appeats courts.
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.
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.
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?
Jeeze, I hate it when you're right.
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.
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.
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.
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?
So Autumn, do you see now why we can't give additional hearings to 20 million illegal aliens?