Monthly Archives: April 2017

BBA Council Hears from the Governor’s Chief Legal Counsel

Last week, we were happy to welcome back Lon Povich, Governor Charlie Baker’s Chief Legal Counsel and former member of the BBA Council and the Statewide Task Force to Expand Civil Legal Aid. On his annual visit to Council he provided an update on three key areas of interest to members of the Bar:  1) Criminal Justice Reform, 2) the Budget, and 3) the Judicial Nominating Process.

Criminal Justice Reform

Lon Povich first spoke on criminal justice reform, highlighting the recent report released by the Council of State Governments (CSG).  We’ve been following the report, and related legislation filed in February by the Governor, closely. Overall, the report and bill focus on reducing recidivism in the Commonwealth, which is currently at about 40%. The Governor’s Proposed Budget allocated $3.5 million to fund the costs of implementing the recommendations in the report for the first year.

With the reducing recidivism goal, the proposed reforms include increasing programming for incarcerated individuals, providing more training for corrections officers, expanding the availability of behavioral health services, increasing credit for “good time served”, allowing good time to apply to some mandatory minimum sentences, strengthening the coordination between prisons and the Parole Board, and improving data collection. Overall, Povich characterized the bill as a start to criminal justice reform, but he thought it would attack recidivism head on. One member of Council expressed concern that if the legislation coming from the CSG report is rushed through the legislative process, momentum will be lost for more sweeping reforms, including front-end reforms that many stakeholders believe important, like those related to bail, collateral consequences, and mandatory minimums. In response, Povich said he did not see the CSG bill as a barrier, but instead a starting point. The narrow nature of the current proposed legislation reflected what it took to gain consensus among the sponsors of the CSG project, the Governor, the Speaker of the House, the Senate President and Chief Justice Gants, so he was worried if too many additional proposals were attached, it might not pass at all.

In addition to the above, Povich mentioned four other pieces of criminal justice legislation coming from the Governor’s Office this session. One relates to “fine time,” which is the practice of incarcerating individuals when they are unable to pay court fines and fees. The new bill would provide other options for defendants that cannot afford a fine and would provide counsel for indigent defendants facing fine time. The next bill would increase the penalty for assault and battery on police officers. The third bill would reform the current laws on the sharing of sexually explicit material, including “sexting” and “revenge porn.” The final piece of legislation he mentioned would update the wiretap statute, which was drafted in 1965, to account for modern technology and reform the types of crimes it covers. (Here at the BBA, we’ve also called for updates to the current wiretap laws.)

Budget Update

Next, Povich discussed the state budget, first noting that money is very tight right now, especially given the rising MassHealth costs. He spoke on funding for the Trial Court first, noting the 1% increase provided for in the Governor’s proposed budget as well as the inclusion of $11.7 million in the more recent House Ways and Means proposed budget to cover the pay raise legislation enacted since the Governor’s budget was released. He also mentioned the additional $1.5 million provided for the Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corporation (MLAC) in the House Ways and Means proposal. Finally, Povich noted that while the Governor’s budget allocated $1 million for expanding the jurisdiction of the Housing Court to the whole state, the House Ways and Means budget did not include any funding for this expansion. To wrap up his budget update, he discussed the rest of the budget process, which we’ve also covered in a podcast, and highlighted the significant impact BBA advocacy has on funding for the judiciary and civil legal aid.

To learn more about the funding of the Judiciary, civil legal aid, and statewide expansion of the Housing Court, check out our numerous updates on the budget!

Court Nominating Process

Finally, Lon Povich discussed court nominations under the Baker Administration, first noting that 53 judges had been appointed since the Governor took office. Around 33 vacancies remain in other courts, but nine are currently being scheduled for Governor’s Council hearings and six letters of nomination are about to be sent, so there are 18 positions for which nominees have not yet been identified. He called on the Council and the private bar to help in filling these vacancies by encouraging qualified attorneys to apply for these positions. He also highlighted that of the 53 new judges appointed during Governor Baker’s time in office, around 50% are women and around 20% are considered diverse, meaning they are members of racial or ethnic minority groups or members of the LGBTQ community.

In a follow-up question by a member of Council, Povich addressed whether the Governor’s Office would consider making the process to become a judge less arduous, in order to encourage more applications. Interestingly, when Povich previously addressed Council, it was on the heels of an Executive Order reforming the nominating process, which we outline in full here.  To summarize, the applications for judicial and clerk-magistrate positions are first reviewed by the Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC), a 21-member, statewide, non-partisan, non-compensated body currently chaired by former BBA president Paul Dacier and vice-chaired by former BBA Council member Roberto Braceras. Then, the Commissioner’s interview approved candidates and at least ½ of the Commissioners casting a vote amongst a quorum must agree to continue the application of the potential nominee. Following a period of thorough research and evaluation, a two-thirds vote is required for the JNC to forward an applicant’s name to the Governor’s Office to be considered for nomination. Typically, the JNC forwards between 3 and 6 potential nominees to the Governor’s Chief Legal Counsel, who then seeks input from the Joint Bar Committee (JBC). The JBC determines whether a candidate is well qualified, qualified, not qualified or there is insufficient information to evaluate the candidate. The JBC communicates its vote to the Governor’s office, and the Governor can nominate the applicant, deny the application, seek further commendation from the JNC, or re-open the application process.

In response to the question on whether the process could be simplified in order to encourage more applications, Povich responded by saying that he served on the JNC in both the Romney and Patrick administration who followed the same JNC process and that he believes the current three-step process is effective in ensuring that only top-quality candidates receive judgeships. Ultimately, he acknowledged the “triathlon” (JNC, Governor’s Office and Governor’s Council) that applicants must go through, but maintained that the work, by the applicants, the JNC, the JBC, and the Governor’s Office is all worth it to get the most qualified nominees.

With his earlier call in mind, if you’ve considered pursuing judgeship, or know someone who would make a great judge, now is the time to apply!

—Alexa Daniel
Legislative and Public Policy Manager
Boston Bar Association

SJC Update: Dookhan Conviction Dismissals and ICE Detainer Oral Arguments

From time to time, we like to update you on recent key happenings at the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC). This month, we have two significant developments to share: one related to the dismissal of over 20,000 convictions based on tainted drug evidence, and the other related to the SJC hearing oral arguments on the legal force of an “ICE Detainer.”

Bridgeman v. District Attorney

On Tuesday, five years since reports of the misconduct of Annie Dookhan at the Hinton Drug Lab first emerged, thousands of individuals who had been convicted or pled on the basis of tainted evidence finally received some resolution. Following the holding in “Bridgeman II,” prosecutors just announced they were dismissing 21,587 drug convictions, likely the largest mass dismissal in U.S. history.

As you know, from our many past reports, the scandal arose from the 2012 discovery that chemist Annie Dookhan had for years mishandled thousands of drug samples, by, among other things, contaminating unknown drug samples with known drugs, failing to conduct tests on samples she then labeled as controlled substances, and falsifying evidence logs and reports.

In 2013, she pled guilty to 27 criminal counts, including perjury, obstruction of justice, and tampering with evidence, and served more than two years in prison. All the while, more than 20,000 individuals that were convicted or pled on the basis of the tainted evidence were living with the significant consequences that come along with a criminal conviction, including difficulty securing employment, housing, custody of their children, and public benefits. Because a Dookhan conviction often served as a predicate offense, many also faced harsher sentences for later charges.

Over the past few years, the courts struggled to determine how to offer justice based on the sheer volume of such cases, and Bridgeman v. District Attorney for Suffolk County eventually went to the SJC two times. In May of 2015, the SJC held that the Dookhan defendants who challenged their convictions could not be charged with more serious crimes if given a new trial. Additionally, even if convicted, they could not be given a harsher sentence than was originally imposed.

In the fall of 2016, Bridgeman was before the SJC again, this time to determine whether all the convictions based on tainted evidence should be dismissed or instead subject to a court-imposed deadline. The BBA submitted a brief, written by Amicus Committee Co-Chairs Elizabeth Ritvo, Brown Rudnick, and Anthony Scibelli, Barclay Damon, calling for a global remedy. We argued that the Court should vacate, without prejudice, the adverse disposition on all drug-related charges where Dookhan was the primary or secondary chemist, and that the Commonwealth should be allowed a period of at least one year to re-prosecute individual charges, with the remainder automatically dismissed with prejudice.

Overall, the brief was drafted based on two principles central to the BBA’s mission: access to justice and the fair administration of justice. The global remedy would secure justice for the defendants who had already been living with the consequences of a conviction based on faulty evidence. Also, because the criminal misconduct was that of a state employee, implicating the public confidence in the government and justice system, the burden should be on the Commonwealth and not the individual defendants, to right the wrong. Furthermore, a global remedy would begin to relieve the burden on the justice system of individually resolving more than 20,000 cases.

In January, the SJC released its decision, agreeing that the Commonwealth should bear the burden, but declining to adopt a global remedy. The decision called for a three-step protocol where: 1) the District Attorneys were given 90 days to vacate and dismiss with prejudice those cases that would or could not be re-prosecuted; 2) adequate notice was to be approved by the Single Justice and sent to all defendants whose cases had not been dismissed; and 3) the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) would assign counsel to all indigent defendants who wished to explore the possibility of moving to vacate their plea or for a new trial.

The 90-day first step just came to an end, and prosecutors announced Tuesday that over 20,000 cases would be dismissed with prejudice. Overall, this brings the State, and the Dookhan defendants, much closer to a final resolution. The BBA is proud to have played a part and applauds the dismissal. BBA President Carol Starkey stated, “We thank the District Attorneys for their recognition that a different course of action, more than five years after the scandal first came to light, is necessary to protect the fairness and integrity of our criminal justice system.”

President Starkey noted that “[f]or far too long, thousands of Massachusetts residents have lived under a cloud created by the misconduct of a rogue state employee, carrying a criminal record that may have prevented them from securing jobs, housing, benefits, and even legal immigration status. Today’s actions lift that cloud and allow the Dookhan defendants to move forward.”

As Dookhan takes a step toward comprehensive resolution, another case garnering nationwide attention just appeared before the SJC for oral arguments….

Commonwealth v. Sreynuon Lunn

On April 4, the SJC heard arguments on whether it is permissible for state and local authorities to hold people on “ICE detainers.” These detainers, from the federal Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), request federal, state, or local officials to hold individuals for up to 48 hours beyond when they would otherwise be released, on the basis that ICE has “determined that there is a reason to believe the individuals is an alien subject to removal from the United States.”

Sreynuon Lunn entered the US in 1985 as a refugee, receiving lawful permanent resident status in the early 1990s. He was ordered deported in the early 2000s on account of criminal convictions. Cambodia, however, would not accept Lunn back, and he was released from federal custody in October 2008. Eight years later he was arrested again on unarmed robbery charges. ICE lodged a detainer request with state authorities, but on February 6 state prosecutors elected not to prosecute Lunn and the case was dismissed from Boston Municipal Court. Lunn’s attorney asked for him to be released but the judge declined, and Lunn remained in court lock-up until ICE agents took him into custody several hours later. While the case is now moot as a result of Lunn’s detention, the SJC took it up “because the case raises important, recurring, time-sensitive issues that will likely evade the full court’s review in future cases.”

At oral arguments, the SJC heard from three attorneys, one on behalf of the Department of Justice (DOJ), one on behalf of the Commonwealth, and one on behalf of Lunn. Joshua Press, for DOJ, argued that without a law prohibiting state officials from detaining people at the request of ICE, authorities did not misstep by enforcing the requested detention and that detainer requests reflect principles of comity between various law enforcement agencies.

Jessica Barnett, deputy chief of the Criminal Appeals Division for Attorney General Maura Healey, presented the state’s argument that state agencies lacked the authority to comply with ICE, noting that keeping an individual in custody after the case is otherwise resolved was the equivalent of a fresh arrest without sufficient legal justification. She argued that “probable cause for civil removability is simply not a basis for arrest under Massachusetts law.” Emma Winger of CPCS, attorney for Lunn, echoed that, but also argued that the detainer process violates constitutional guarantees of due process because it amounts to custody without judicial oversight.

This case is significant for a number of reasons, not least because it may be the first State Supreme Court to reach the issue. It is also being considered in a time of great uncertainty around immigration given recent federal events, including the issuance of controversial executive orders and warnings from Attorney General Jeff Sessions that those cities and towns that do not comply with federal immigration law may lose federal funding.

ICE Presence in Courthouses

The argument also occurred on the heels of reports across the country that ICE officials were showing up at courthouses in order to reach undocumented immigrants. One of the first of such stories was the arrest of a woman in Texas who was seeking a protective order against an allegedly abusive boyfriend. The reports of ICE’s presence at courts have brought sharp criticism, not only from the attorneys of the immigrants being targeted by ICE, but also judges, including the Chief Justices in California, Washington, and New Jersey.

Much of this criticism centers around a concern that ICE arrests at courthouses can undermine the judicial system. As Washington Chief Justice Mary Fairhurst wrote in her letter to Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly, “When people are afraid to appear for court hearings, out of fear or apprehension by immigration officials, their ability to access justice is compromised. Their absence curtails the capacity of our judges, the clerks and court personnel to function effectively.” This chilling effect was also highlighted by New Jersey Chief Justice Stuart Rabner who wrote to Secretary Kelly that “witnesses to violent crimes may decide to stay away from court and remain silent. Victims of domestic violence and other offenses may choose not to testify against their attackers. Children and families in need of court assistance may likewise avoid the courthouse. And defendants in state criminal matters may simply not appear.”

Overall, with the nation watching how ICE and state officials will interact, the Lunn case could not come at a more important time. As usual, we’ll continue to keep a close eye on this and all other matters impacting access to, and the fair administration of, justice.

We may even have the chance to discuss the issue of ICE showing up at courthouses with our Massachusetts Congressional Delegation in D.C. next week. President Carol Starkey and President-Elect Mark Smith are headed down as part of ABA Day, where they will be advocating for civil legal aid through federal funding of the Legal Services Corporation and for increased access to legal services for homeless veterans.

Stay tuned for updates on the BBA advocacy in Washington!

—Alexa Daniel
Legislative and Public Policy Manager
Boston Bar Association


BBA Budget Update: House Ways and Means Proposes FY18 Budget

As we’ve reported, BBA advocacy on the Budget for FY18 is now in full gear. This means we’ve been keeping a close watch on all budget-related happenings, and on Monday the House Ways and Means Committee released their $40.3 billion proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18), which begins on July 1.

With this release, members of the House are gearing up for a busy few weeks, as they will file and debate proposed amendments before the final House budget is passed. Then, it’ll be the Senate’s turn to propose, debate, and pass their own version of the budget. After that, a conference committee will attempt to reconcile the differences in the two budgets, and once approved by both chambers of the Legislature, the Governor has ten days to review and sign it. The Governor cannot add additional items but can veto or reduce particular line-items or veto the entire budget. The House and Senate can then, with a two-thirds roll-call vote in each chamber, vote to override any vetoes.

The House Ways and Means Committee proposed budget contains some significant departures from the Governor’s budget, H.1, in the areas that we’ve highlighted as our state funding priorities, including:


As the largest provider of funds for state legal-services agencies, the Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corporation (MLAC) is a crucial piece of providing access to justice for Massachusetts residents. The Governor’s proposed budget called for only a 1% increase in the MLAC line-item, leaving the proposed appropriation at $18.18 million. This $180,000 increase is far below the BBA-supported ask of a $5 million increase that would provide for a $23 million MLAC line-item.

The House Ways and Means Budget recommends an increase of $1.5 million for the MLAC line-item to a total of $19.5 million. This moves MLAC a significant step closer to the $5 million request and will allow civil legal aid programs to take on more than 2,000 new cases.

In the words of Executive Director Lonnie Powers, MLAC is “incredibly pleased that the House Ways and Means Committee recognizes the role that civil legal aid funding plays in promoting equal access to justice for low-income residents of the Commonwealth.” Notably, House Ways and Means Committee Chairperson Brian Dempsey specifically mentioned the inclusion of MLAC in his letter explaining the budget, highlighting it as part of the House’s own commitment “to protecting and providing for [the] Commonwealth’s most vulnerable residents.”

We join MLAC in expressing gratitude that the House Ways and Means Committee continues to recognize and value the importance of civil legal aid. As BBA President-Elect Mark Smith, of Laredo & Smith, was able to relay at a legislative briefing last week, and as we have expressed consistently over the past years, civil legal aid is not only necessary to ensure access to justice, it is also a smart investment that offers many economic benefits to the state.

Overall, this is undoubtedly good news for civil legal aid in Massachusetts, but given the shaky position of the federal budget and President Trump’s proposal to zero-out funding for the main federal funder of civil legal aid, the need for more state funding for MLAC is still critical. An increase of $1.5 million is a good start, but even with that, the state will still be forced to turn away the majority of eligible people who need legal assistance.

Fortunately, Representative Ruth Balser filed an amendment (#822) on Thursday to increase the House Ways and Means Committee recommendation by an additional $1.5 million, bringing the total proposed appropriation to $21 million. As the house budget debates begin, it is crucial that your representatives know how important civil legal aid is to you.

You can contact them now, using this easy tool from our partners at the Equal Justice Coalition (EJC), to ask them to co-sponsor the amendment. If you want to reach out in person or on the phone, you can find your representative here, get guidance from these talking points and resources, and listen to the BBA Issue Spot Podcast with chair of the EJC Louis Tompros for a primer on how to talk to your legislator (especially about civil legal aid).

Trial Court

Adequate funding of the Trial Court, another BBA priority, is necessary to ensure the continued efficient and accessible functioning of our judicial system. The Governor’s proposed budget recommended a 1% increase for the Trial Court, for a total appropriation of $646.8 million. Mostly because of an $11.7 million judicial pay increase that passed after the Governor released his budget in January, this now falls below the Trial Court’s revised funding request of $661,368,224 for FY18.

In more good news, the House Ways and Means Committee recommendation specifically provided for these pay raises in full, as the line-item related the payroll costs of the justices in the seven departments of the Trial Court (0330-0101) moved from $58.5 million in the Governor’s recommendation to $70.3 million. By including this increase, the Committee will allow the Trial Court to continue the gains it has made in recent years on working smarter and getting more done with less money and less staff. Ultimately, this will help to ensure that the Trial Court remains effective and accessible for all Massachusetts residents.

Despite this good news, there was one significant Trial Court line-item missing entirely from the House Ways and Means recommendation, which brings us to…

Statewide Expansion of the Housing Court

For the past few years, we’ve been discussing the reasons why statewide expansion of the Housing Court makes sense. Currently, about one-third of the state lacks access to Housing Court and the benefits that come along with it, including the judges’ expertise in all housing matters, the availability of Housing Specialists who can facilitate settlements and help parties avoid expensive litigation costs, and programs like Lawyer for the Day, which assist pro-se litigants and as a result preserve judicial resources and ensure the efficient operation of the Court.

In an important step, the Governor’s budget recommended $1 million for the expansion. After the release of the Governor’s budget Representative Chris Walsh sent a letter, signed onto by 42 other Representatives, to the House Ways and Means Committee, urging them to include the full $1.2 million needed for successful initial expansion in their FY18 budget proposal. Unfortunately, the Committee removed the Housing Court Expansion line-item entirely.

However, the Housing Court Expansion line-item can still be included in the Senate budget, so now is the time to let your Senator know about the importance of allocating $1.2 million for this expansion. Additionally, two bills, one in the House and one in the Senate, have  been filed to advance housing court expansion, so you can urge your legislators to support this legislation to ensure that nearly one-third of the state is no longer excluded from the benefits of the Housing Court. Make sure to check out these resources and tips in our how-to-talk-to-your-legislator podcast!

As outlined above, there is still a ways to go in the budget process, which means there is plenty of time left for the BBA, and all of you as individuals, to advocate for adequate funding to ensure that Massachusetts is able to provide access to justice for all its residents. Keep watching this space for more news on budget developments and how you can get involved!

—Alexa Daniel
Legislative and Public Policy Manager
Boston Bar Association


News from the State House: Educating Beacon Hill at a Public Hearing and a Legislative Briefing

With legislative committee hearings picking up steam of late, the 2017-18 legislative session is underway in earnest now, and we were at the State House for two important events this week.

The session technically lasts for two years, but the critical work generally must be accomplished by July 31 of the second year, as that’s the last date for formal meetings of the two houses in full.  After that, until the new Legislature is sworn in the following January, only informal sessions are conducted, with just a few representatives attending—any one of whom can individually block a bill from passing.  Thus, only those matters considered non-controversial are taken up.

The first couple of months of the session are spent on bill-filing (legislators must file bills by mid-January for them to be automatically admitted); populating the several dozen House, Senate, and joint committees; assigning those thousands of bills to the respective committees; and scheduling of hearings by the newly-appointed committee co-chairs (one from each house on the joint committees).

All bills that are duly admitted must get a public hearing before the committee to which they’ve been assigned.  Most often, because of the large number of bills on each committee’s docket, the hearings cover many bills at once.  Any member of the public can come forward to offer testimony on one or more bills, and although witnesses are asked to keep their statements brief, the hearing continues until all have been heard.

This past Monday, the Revenue Committee met for its first public hearing of the new session, and one of the BBA’s bills was on the agenda: House Bill 2645 (H. 2645): An act to continue tax basis rules for property acquired from decedents, filed on our behalf by Representative Alice H. Peisch.  It’s a complicated issue, to be sure, but fortunately, we had George Cushing, of McLane Middleton, on hand to help break it down for committee members—and within the three-minute time limit even (not counting follow-up questions from the panel)!

Without getting bogged down in the details, there were changes made to the federal estate tax several years ago, and while Massachusetts made some changes to its estate tax in response, the net result is that beneficiaries of decedents who passed away in 2010 will not get the benefit, which others do, of a “step-up” in the basis of the property they inherit (say, a home, a small business, or equities).  That means that when they sell that property down the road, perhaps many years later, they will be taxed on the capital gain not since the inheritance but rather since the decedent made the original purchase.  And if that purchase was well before their death in 2010, the difference could be not only unfair but substantial as well.

This unusual situation has led to confusion and differing interpretations among practitioners, thus creating unnecessary uncertainty.  We are seeking to provide that clarity by eliminating the anomaly that this hidden double tax represents, restoring the status quo ante, in which successors to decedents’ property get enhanced basis, but the property is subject to the Massachusetts estate tax.  Individuals who inherited property from those 2010 Massachusetts decedents will be authorized to use the federal adjusted basis (generally the value at death), as determined under the federal rule that applied in 2010 only, if the carry-over basis regime was not elected for federal tax purposes.

George Cushing, testifying on behalf of the BBA, before the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Revenue, April 3, 2017

The good thing about this first Revenue Committee hearing is that, by design, all the bills heard were approved by the Committee in the last session.  We hope that our bill will be among those reported favorably again—and that we can push it on for floor votes in each chamber this time.

Those votes would likely happen farther into the session.  For now, the biggest item before both houses is the development of the Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18) budget.  As we’ve noted, the Governor has already filed his proposal for spending the $40+ billion the state expects to take in next year.  Before FY18 begins on July 1, the two chambers will (we hope) come together on a budget package to send back to the Governor—which he may then accept as is, or (more likely) will mostly approve but send back with targeted cuts and some suggested changes.

The next big step in that process takes place this coming week, with the House Ways & Means Committee formally submitting its version of the budget for deliberation by the full House over the rest of the month.

One of the BBA’s biggest priorities, in this or any other year, is funding for civil legal aid in the Commonwealth, which is primarily provided by the Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corporation (MLAC).  MLAC, in turn, receives the bulk of its resources through an appropriation in the state budget.

Our commitment to this issue is reflected by the establishment of a BBA Statewide Task Force to Expand Civil Legal Aid in Massachusetts, and our adoption of the Task Force report’s primary recommendation, that MLAC funding be increased by $30 million over three years.  Since the report’s release in 2014, state finances have hit a prolonged rough patch in which revenue has consistently missed targeted levels, and despite broad and deep support from Massachusetts legislators, we’ve fallen short of that goal.  Still, the Legislature and the Governor have come through with a 20% increase for MLAC across the last two years, to $18 million in FY17, even as overall spending has grown at a much lower rate.

This year, we are advocating for a $5 million increase in MLAC’s line-item.  Our efforts on civil legal aid are in conjunction with the Equal Justice Coalition (EJC)—a joint partnership of the BBA, MLAC, and the Massachusetts Bar Association—and to help spread the message about civil legal aid on Beacon Hill, and grow our support even further, the EJC held a briefing earlier today (Thursday) for elected representatives and their staffs.

The BBA’s President-Elect Mark Smith, of Laredo & Smith, took part in a panel discussion, to help educate the dozens of State House denizens in attendance.  In particular, Mark underscored both the report’s finding that investment in civil legal aid produces a positive return on investment for state coffers, and the BBA’s continued commitment to fighting for that full $30 million increase in state funding for civil legal aid—even if on-going budget constraints mean that it will take longer to get there than we, or the Legislature, would like.  (You can get more info about that funding here.)

 BBA President-Elect Mark Smith speaking at a State House briefing
on funding for civil legal aid, April 6, 2017

And with the White House recommending that Congress zero out funding for the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), which distributes an additional $5.2 million to providers in Massachusetts, our support from the Legislature at home may be tested even further.  Although the LSC money is independent of the state-level appropriation to MLAC, we would nevertheless certainly feel that loss here, as it represents more than 20% of the total funding for legal services in the Commonwealth.

So as we stay on top of the budget process at the State House—and keep you updated on it—we’ll also have one eye cast on the Capitol in DC.  We’ll be headed that way to make the case for the LSC, and civil legal aid in general, as part of the American Bar Association’s annual ABA Day lobbying event toward the end of April.

More on that to follow in this space … In the meantime, check out our four different podcasts relevant to the larger issue:

—Michael Avitzur
Government Relations Director
Boston Bar Association