It was just after 9:30 a.m. last on Thursday when Judge Jonathan Tynes entered the First Session courtroom of the Dorchester division of Boston Municipal Court as a bailiff instructed the three dozen or so people waiting on benches to rise.
The courthouse on Washington Street is one of the busiest in Suffolk County and on this morning, like most mornings, the docket was filled with cases for the judge to take up one by one.
One defendant, arrested overnight, stood accused of stabbing a family member on Wheatland Avenue. Others were facing charges of less serious crimes for the first time while several more were back in court because their cases— some now several months old— had not yet been adjudicated.
That backlog was mainly due to a three-months-long labor dispute between the state court system and attorneys who, as a matter of course, agree to defend, for set fees, the accused who can’t afford to hire a lawyer. These so-called “bar advocates” began a collective action in May when they stopped taking on new cases in protest against what they consider unfair compensation.
While these advocates are continuing to defend clients whose cases they accepted prior to May, their job action has upended the normal workflow inside courtrooms around the Commonwealth— and, in particular, in inner-city neighborhoods like Dorchester, where many defendants cannot afford to pay their legal fees.
Few observers in the legal community argue with their grievance. Massachusetts pays bar advocates between $65 and $120 per hour, depending on the severity of a defendant’s alleged offense, a fee far less than what comparable attorneys are paid in other nearby states.
Last Thursday, lawmakers passed a supplemental budget bill that included funding that Democratic leaders on Beacon Hill framed as a compromise to end the labor action. According to the State House News Service, the bill, if signed, “would increase bar advocate pay, declare any similar refusal to take new cases in the future an antitrust violation, and boost funding for the Committee for Public Counsel Services by $40 million to hire additional staff attorneys.”
The bill would increase the pay of the advocates by $20 per hour over two years, a number much less than the $60 per hour overall raise in fees that they have been seeking.
Privately, some prosecutors say that the effect of the job action has been a “nightmare” for court employees, many of whom also feel under-paid while now working extra hours to deal with the collateral problems caused by the absence of defense counsel in so many cases.
And, for victims seeking justice along with defendants hoping to resolve pending cases — big and small— there’s mounting frustration with the paralysis and confusion in courtroom proceedings.
That dynamic was apparent as soonas Judge Tynes began his work on Thursday. Before the first case was called, he spoke directly to the waiting defendants, including several who awaiting arraignments for crimes allegedly committed the day before.
Like so many whose cases are being heard in Dorchester BMC, none of the latter group had defense attorneys at their sides.
“As you may have heard from a couple of the earlier plaintiffs, I don’t have lawyers to appoint,” Tynes said. “The lawyers are still on strike. If you qualified for a court-appointed counsel, we’ll hear your matter on a case-by-case basis, and I’ll make my determination. Obviously, it’s much more difficult when we don’t have attorneys to advocate on your behalf.”
One of the first cases called was that of a Dorchester man who had been arrested on Wednesday night and charged with attacking family members with a knife. The Reporter is withholding his name due to his lack of counsel and the nature of the incident.
The judge agreed to impose a restraining order that had been requested by the defendant’s family members. For their part, prosecutors, noting that the defendant had open cases in BMC’s Central Division and in Quincy District Court, wanted Tynes to revoke the defendant’s bail in those cases and hold him without bail on the latest charge.
But, without defense counsel to speak with, and for, the suspect, Tynes faced a dilemma.
“I don’t have a lawyer to appoint to you, and this is a question of bail, and you need a lawyer to argue that on your behalf,” he told the defendant. “We’ll put on this case for next Friday. If no lawyer is appointed prior to that, there should be a hearing in Central Division [for that open case] the day before and we’ll put this on for the next day, Friday, and we’ll see what happens.”
This proceeding was a prime example of how jurists around the Commonwealth are now factoring all sorts of new considerations as they work their cases through the day.
In another instance, the defendant called had also been charged with domestic violence and arraigned on July 7. He posted $1,500 bail at the time and was ordered back to court on Thursday, when, again without an attorney, he listened as the judge deferred action and scheduled another court appearance.
“We’ll have to give you another day to come back for appointment of counsel,” Tynes said. “Hopefully there will be one on that day…We’ll see what happens. We’ll put it on for the 21st [of August], but pay attention because you might hear something before that. Keep an eye on your inbox and phone for something.”
Similar instructions were later given to a woman facing trial for assault and battery in a case that has lingered since she was arraigned on May 25.
“At this point, ma’am, I still don’t have an attorney for you,” Tynes said. “We’ll have you come back on Aug. 20.
Hopefully on that date there will be an attorney. If not, this case could probably be dismissed, but we’ll see.”
In another example of how proceedings have taken a curious turn, the judge felt he had to caution a defendant who had made repeated trips to Dorchester Court since he was charged with “leaving the scene of property damage” on May 18.
This was the sort of case that likely would have been resolved quickly by a court-appointed attorney. Frustrated, the accused had begun to describe the accident verbally and with body language to Tynes, who reacted immediately.
“Be careful. I don’t want you to talk about that right now; you need a lawyer with you,” he said. “Everything is being recorded. I understand your frustration. If you had a lawyer now you could go into the lobby and talk about it, and we could figure out the best course of action today. This happened on May 18, and you keep having to come back.
“I understand the frustration,” Tynes added. “Now, you have to wait another 45 days [Sept. 15]. When we can get this addressed, I don’t know. Maybe when you come back, you can make the Commonwealth an offer they can’t refuse.”
As the morning session clicked past noon, case by case, the judge advised defendants of the counselor impasse.
Once again, a defendant, this time a woman who had been charged with assault and battery on a man she said arrived at her Dorchester home uninvited the day before had started to give her version of what had happened when the judge intervened.
“Hold on,” he warned. Don’t say too much because you’re being recorded and you don’t have an attorney present for you.”
In this case, prosecutors from the Suffolk County DA’s office agreed to hold off on her arraignment and take more time to gather information on the situation.
Later, Tynes, by now visibly aggravated, questioned the evidence in the case of a lawyer-less woman who had been facing a vehicle accident charge since February and was now back in front of him again.
Prosecutors were pressing him to charge her formally. But, he wondered from the bench about the proof of her being on the scene of the accident and held his head in his hands, sighing deeply.
“If there was a lawyer here for you,” he told the woman, “they would have objected to you being arraigned and would have moved to dismiss because of lack of probable cause.”
Tynes then dismissed the case and told the assistant prosecutors that investigators needed to “do more work before issuing the complaint.” And, turning to the defendant, he said: “Be aware, they will probably refile.”
Reporter editor Bill Forry contributed to this report.
