Last year, Dorchester had a front-row seat to a dangerous debacle that unfolded when the state’s system for providing legal counsel to accused people who cannot afford attorneys broke down.
A prolonged work stoppage by private attorneys—so-called “bar advocates” who accept court-appointed cases— threw the state’s criminal courts into turmoil. Dorchester’s division of Boston Municipal Court was particularly hard-hit.
Hundreds of cases were dismissed because defendants could not obtain legal representation. Victims and their families were left without resolution, defendants faced uncertainty, and confidence in the justice system was dealt a blow. It was a chaotic situation and may have led to at least one defendant, who had no access to a lawyer, to be released. He allegedly went on to commit a murder within days of his release.
The work-stoppage stemmed from a longstanding dispute over compensation for the bar advocates. Their hourly rates, still among the lowest in New England, had become increasingly difficult to justify amid rising costs and demanding caseloads. State lawmakers reluctantly agreed to a modest pay hike and advanced legislation to expand the ranks of state-funded public defenders. But it wasn’t enough.
Question 2 on the Tuesday’s statewide ballot offers voters another way to shore up this too-fragile system. A “yes on 2” vote would give employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS), the state agency responsible for representing people who cannot afford lawyers, the legal right to organize and bargain collectively over wages, benefits, and working conditions.
As part of the “compromise” to end last year’s work stoppage, Gov. Healey signed legislation that committed $40 million to hire 320 additional salaried public defenders over two fiscal years. The aim is to reduce the state’s reliance on private attorneys and provide a more dependable system using CPCS lawyers. That’s a good idea. But, these state employees — including attorneys, paralegals, investigators, social workers, and administrative personnel— cannot currently unionize. So, unlike most other Massachusetts public employees, they lack a pathway to collective bargaining. They need the state law to be changed to do so.
The “yes” side is backed by some familiar local names who aren’t always aligned on the same side: Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley and Boston Mayor Michelle Wu are for it. So are City Councillors Erin Murphy and Ed Flynn, who joined John FitzGerald, Henry Santana, Julia Mejia, and Ruthzee Jouijeuene in supporting the measure. Other backers include Congressman Stephen Lynch, and the Boston Teachers Union has also endorsed the measure.
What’s the argument against it? During legislative testimony last year, some raised concerns that collective bargaining will complicate management decisions within CSPS and increase costs. The state’s official voter guide acknowledges that the financial consequences cannot be easily projected. And Question 2 won’t directly resolve the disputes that caused the work stoppage by private attorneys that caused the biggest disruptions at Dorchester court and in other courthouses last year.
Still, Question 2 offers voters a viable response to the larger problem. Giving public defenders greater control over their workplace and pay can help bring more lawyers into the noble profession of public defense. That’s a persuasive argument.
We don’t want a repeat of the courthouse chaos that we witnessed and chronicled last year to happen ever again. That’s why we recommend a “yes” vote on Question 2.
Copyright © 2026 Boston Neighborhood News, Inc. This content may not be re-published or re-used without written permission
