Massachusetts has what is generally regarded as one of the best public defender systems in the country.   It is a true “mixed model” in which one board and organization manages both a group of about 200 salaried lawyers (the Public Counsel Division) and a network of several thousand lawyers paid on an hourly basis (the Private Counsel Division.)

Now, according to the Boston Globe, the Governor is proposing effectively abolishing the private attorney side, moving control of the system from a Board appointed by the state supreme court to the a new executive agency, and also requiring additional proof of indigency from the those who are to obtain its services.

The incentive — an estimated $45 million a yer, out of a current budget of $207 million.  It appears that at least a major impetus for the proposed change comes from some DAs (which might cause pause to some.)  Quoting the Globe:

“I applaud the governor for his vision,’’ said Bristol County District Attorney Samuel Sutter, president of the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association. “The district attorneys have been saying publicly for months that sweeping reform is needed. We simply cannot afford the system that is currently in place for indigent defense.”

It is technically correct that the DAs get less money in the state budget than CPCS, but as always, and as previously pointed out in this debate (Globe article), and CPCS Press Release, comparisons are difficult, given that that CPCS handles certain civil cases in which there is a right to counsel, certain other expenses in civil cases involving the indigent, must handle its own investigations, and does not have police back up.  (On the other hand, the DAs handle non-indigent as well as indigent cases.)

Disclosure, I was part of the Management Team at CPCS during the mid 1980s, when the private attorney and public lawyer systems were being integrated, and it is perhaps because of that experience that I have long been an advocate, even in the civil area, of the so-called “mixed model” in which different roles are played by salaried and “by the hour/case” lawyers.

One of the strongest arguments for the “mixed model” is its political strength in bringing the bar in as advocates for access.  That, at least, will be tested in the days to come as the Massachusetts process plays out.

Feb 14 update:  New article in the Boston Globe, highlighting cost of system.  Agency asserts that legislative changes to reduce caseload planned by 2005 Commission have never been made.