Tag Archives: lawyers

Let’s Be Smart About Sentencing and Parole

The stakes are high when we begin talking about public safety, crime prevention and the overall functioning of the Massachusetts criminal justice system.  Rhetoric like “tough on crime,” “three strikes and you’re out” and “if you do the crime, you do the time” are often bandied about when criminal justice reform appears on the horizon.

This week’s Boston Globe editorial, “Curb parole for violent crime, but rethink drug sentencing,” urged lawmakers “to create a stronger, fairer, and more economical criminal justice system.”  While saying this will necessitate an “approach that cracks down on violent offenders while taking a fresh look at nonviolent drug offenders,” the editorial  speaks to the importance of understanding the dynamic  relationship between mandatory sentencing, parole and prison cell availability.

A bit of background. . .

Even before the Boston Bar Association published its 1991 report, The Crisis in Corrections and Sentencing in Massachusetts,  the BBA has been on the forefront of discussions on how to make the MA criminal justice system more effective.  We have long taken the position that mandatory  minimums and their “one-size-fits-all” approach do not allow for judicial discretion to impose sentences that actually fit the crime.

We have yet to see the Senate bill to which the Globe editorial alludes.  All we know is that the bill is expected to be taken up for consideration and a vote by the full Senate soon.  While it’s unlikely there will be a public hearing on this particular bill, nobody can say it’s come out of left field.  Let’s review a bit of recent history:

  • December 2010 – A parolee released from a triple life sentence killed Woburn police officer Jack Maguire.
  • January 2011 – All five members of the parole board, including the Executive Director, resigned.  The governor, several legislators and a district attorney dusted off their own habitual offender bills and filed them in the legislature, producing an array of bills aimed at making changes to the current laws.
  • September – All of these sentencing bills generated hours of public testimony at a hearing before the Judiciary Committee.
  • Right now – A bipartisan group of senators, appointed by Senate President Murray over the summer, is at work producing a soon-to-be released parole bill.

What we do know from our more than 20 years of work in this area is that any parole reform or habitual offender bill that does not take into consideration mandatory minimum drug sentences is bad public policy.  Parole and habitual offender reforms should be a part of a comprehensive crime package – but one that should include sensible mandatory minimum sentencing reform for drug offenses – because of the interrelatedness of our criminal justice system’s components.  Parole reform, habitual offender legislation and sentencing reform are inextricably connected and the time has come for Massachusetts to implement measured change in this area.

 

-Kathleen Joyce
Government Relations Director
Boston Bar Association
Comments are disabled for this blog. To submit your comments please e-mail
issuespot@bostonbar.org

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Passage of Probate Laws Needed ASAP

The Massachusetts Uniform Probate Code (UPC) will be effective for estates on January 2, 2012; it became effective for guardianship on July 1, 2009.  This landmark piece of legislation is something the BBA has worked on and supported for over 20 years.  Not only does the UPC improve what was a deplorable situation concerning the appointment and conduct of guardians, but it will simplify the probate process for families and our courts while expediting the process for administering estates. The UPC facilitates the appointments of executors and also provides options for choosing informal or formal procedures to open and close probate matters.  All in all, lawyers and the courts are pleased with it.

The Probate and Family Court has been educating its staff on the new law and working diligently to promulgate new forms that will be used when the rest of the UPC is rolled out in January.  To supplement their efforts, the BBA will offer a continuing legal education seminar introducing the new estate rules in November to help practitioners navigate the changes.

Now what? The Legislature needs to pass two more bills quickly.  The first, S704, contains technical corrections to the UPC.  These corrective changes address issues that came to light during the initial implementation and take into account things like missed cross references, typos and other oversights. The second bill, the Massachusetts Uniform Trust Code (MUTC), is a companion piece to the UPC.  Since the MUTC repeals most of Article VII of the UPC and replaces it with more current language, it would be advantageous to have all the statutory trust law provisions in the same place in the new MUTC and take effect as scheduled on January 2, 2012.

Like the UPC, the MUTC is a substantial bill that has been well-vetted.  It was produced by the Uniform Laws Commission after a five-year drafting period.  Then in 2005, an ad hoc committee of lawyers, including members of the BBA, was convened to review the bill in detail.  They debated each section of the MUTC and, as a result, what we have is a statute that will simplify and make the trusts laws in Massachusetts more accessible.

Here are just a few reasons that the MUTC should be passed:

  • The laws concerning trust will be uniform, comprehensive and easy to find.
  • It will make the administration of trusts more uniform among the states.
  • It will reduce uncertainty and costly and needless litigation.
  • It provides guidance and protection for trustees who, by the terms of the trust, are to take direction from a non trustee.
  • It simplifies judicial proceeding regarding non judicial settlement agreements and modification and termination of trusts.

January is less than five months away and, realistically, we are looking at a legislative schedule that at best might enact the bills by late September – not a lot of time to conduct the education and training necessary for a smooth implementation next January.  Whatever can be done to facilitate the prompt passage of the MUTC legislation should be done.  Adopting the MUTC will move Massachusetts into the 21st century in trust law.

-Kathleen Joyce

Government Relations Director

BostonBar Association

Comments are disabled for this blog.  To share your comments email issuespot@bostonbar.org

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Let’s Extend Equal Rights to Everyone in Massachusetts

Think about it!  EMC, Harvard University, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and John Hancock – to name just a few – are among the growing number of Massachusetts employers providing equal opportunities and protections to transgender people.  Shouldn’t our state laws do the same?

Since legislation was first filed in 2007, the BBA has supported adding “gender identity and expression” to the state’s civil rights laws and to the list of offenses that are treated as hate crimes. A simple update to the Massachusetts discrimination laws, An Act Relative to Transgender Equal Rights really is a civil rights bill that would provide explicit protection to transgender people. Current Massachusetts civil rights laws prohibit discrimination only on the basis of age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, sex and marital status.

Isn’t it about time that Massachusetts joins the growing number of states that already have laws protecting transgender people? A June 8th Judiciary Committee hearing is the next step in that process.  The Judiciary Committee will hear testimony on H 502 and S 764, filed in the House by Representative Carl Sciortino and in the Senate by Senator Benjamin Downing.

We have made progress in this area.  The Boston City Council passed a transgender protection ordinance nine years ago and earlier this year Governor Patrick signed an executive order banning discrimination against transgender state workers.  With this order, Massachusetts joins several other states with executive orders protecting transgender state workers.

While these are significant steps, Massachusetts should protect all workers and not just state workers.

As in past legislative sessions, supporters of this proposal will probably far outnumber opponents.  Even so, next week’s Judiciary Committee hearing is important.  If this bill is passed, Massachusetts won’t be just joining a growing number of jurisdictions around the country that are enacting transgender-inclusive laws, but will be making a significant statement — that discrimination against transgender individuals is inconsistent with our common desire to live in a just society.

-Kathleen Joyce

Government Relations Director

Boston Bar Association

Comments are disabled for this blog.  To submit your comments please email issuespot@bostonbar.org

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

A Race to Avoid Being Dead Last: MA Needs Access to DNA Now

In less than two weeks, the Judiciary Committee will be holding a public hearing on the BBA’s bill on access to DNA evidence.  Sponsored by Senator Cynthia Creem and Representative John Fernandes, S 753 and H 2165 are on the June 8th agenda in Gardner Auditorium.  Massachusetts likes to think of itself as cutting edge and as an innovator of ideas and practices.  But the sad truth is that Massachusetts is one of only two states that does not guarantee access to DNA testing.  Oklahoma is the other.

The hearing is just the next step in a process that began in the fall of 2008 when then BBA President Kathy Weinman formed a task force to study reforms needed in Massachusetts to reduce the risk of convicting innocent people.   After fourteen months of work, the Task Force released its report titled Getting it Right: Improving the Accuracy and Reliability of the Criminal Justice System in Massachusetts.  Guiding the work of this Task Force was the understanding that for every person wrongfully convicted, a criminal is free to commit more crimes.

This Report, an impressive achievement, did not just sit on a shelf gathering dust after it was published.  Instead it has been a critical part of the conversations we’ve had with members of the legislature and our partners in public safety.  We’ve discussed the process that led to the Report and described how it’s more than just undoing a wrongful conviction, but bringing justice to victims by convicting the guilty.  In all of our meetings there has been a shared understanding of the importance of having a statute like this in Massachusetts.  Often we’ve been met with enthusiasm to help get this done in Massachusetts, and also questions as to why this hasn’t been done before.

An access to DNA statute is important because it is not uncommon for a person to exhaust all possible appeals without being allowed access to DNA evidence from the case.  Sometimes the DNA evidence that was available at the time of the defendant’s trial was never tested or the methods of DNA testing used at the time of the trial were inexact, yielding unreliable results.

In practice, Massachusetts does much of what this bill proposes.  In many cases, access to DNA is granted to the defendant.  The Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab maintains all DNA evidence indefinitely and their facilities meet the highest standards of the field.  To his credit, Suffolk County District Attorney Dan Conley has been doing this for years.  The problem is that none of this is required by law.

Massachusetts has to pass this bill now.  The Oklahoma Bar Association passed a resolution last September establishing a commission to address the reliability and accuracy of convictions in their state.  This comes two years after we created our Task Force and nearly one year after Getting it Right was released.  Massachusetts could end up being the only state in the country without post-conviction access to DNA.  Wouldn’t that be embarrassing?

-Kathleen Joyce

Government Relations Director

BostonBar Association

Comments are disabled for this blog.  Please send your comments to issuespot@bostonbar.org

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

BBA Testifies on Probation Reform

The most seasoned of lobbyists will tell you there’s no way to predict how any one legislative hearing will play out, regardless of how much time you have dedicated to advocating on the issue at hand. These marathon hearings are held in small rooms that are packed with people and video cameras. Hours can pass before you have an opportunity to testify — even if you were the first person in the hearing room.  Sometimes there is a full complement of legislative members engaged and asking lots of questions while other times members are rushing out in response to a roll call to vote on some unrelated matter and you’re lucky if you find yourself talking to one lone legislator.

On Wednesday, BBA President Don Frederico and Jack Cinquegrana testified before the Massachusetts Judiciary Committee at a public hearing held on legislation related to reforming the Probation Department.  The hearing room was filled with judges and probation officers.  At the same time the House was in the middle of debating a $325 million supplemental spending bill.  Amid the BBA’s testimony, not one but two separate roll calls occurred, emptying the panel except for a few Senate members.

During his testimony, BBA Past President Jack Cinquegrana explained that part of the problem faced by the Probation Department stems from inefficient sentencing guidelines that prevent successful re-entry into the community.  Following his remarks, Senator Thomas McGee thanked the BBA for bringing attention to that piece of the probation puzzle.

Every chance to be heard on our position is useful, whether it is one-on-one with a legislator, at a public hearing or in a written statement.  Being given an opportunity to offer our probation principles as the Legislature considers the issue is part of the process, and we will continue to participate in that process.

Speaker Robert DeLeo set probation reform as a priority earlier this year saying he wanted it dealt with “early in the session and as expeditiously as possible.”  Rahm Emmanuel once said, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste….it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.”  Still Judiciary Committee Chairman Eugene O’Flaherty provided a different take at yesterday’s hearing: “As one individual legislator I am not looking at this in terms of the alleged crisis…I don’t respond to alleged crises.  This is going to be done in a deliberative way.”

Regardless of the reasons that probation reform has been made a priority, this is an opportunity to restore the department to the national model it was in the 1990’s.  Progress is already being made under new Commissioner Ron Corbett.

 

-Kathleen Joyce

Government Relations Director

Boston Bar Association

Comments are disabled for this blog.  To share your comments e-mail issuespot@bostonbar.org

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

LSC Fighting Off Federal Cuts

Legal services providers face another yet another blow – following last week’s announcement that the new House Appropriations Committee has proposed a $70 million cut to the Legal Services Corporation (“LSC”) for Fiscal Year 2011.  This immediate cut would be catastrophic to the delivery of legal services in Massachusetts because it would mean an 18% reduction in LSC’s annual funding.  (Because we are already half way through the current fiscal year, legal services providers tell us this actually translates to a 36% cut.)

There have already been serious reductions in other funding sources upon which LSC-funded programs also depend – especially Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (“IOLTA”). As we noted in a previous post, record low interest rates and reductions in the number of real estate transactions have resulted in dwindling IOLTA revenues.

What the House Appropriations Committee proposed last week is in contrast to what President Obama’s unveiled his budget this week.  For Fiscal Year 2012, President Obama actually proposed an increase of $30 million for LSC.

LSC provides grants to independent local programs and currently funds 137 local programs, serving every county and Congressional district in the nation. LSC distributes 97% of the funds it receives to these programs.  Massachusetts has four LSC-funded programs: the Volunteer Lawyers Project of the Boston Bar Association, the Massachusetts Justice Project, Merrimack Valley North Shore Legal Services and the New Center for Legal Advocacy.

If this mid-year cut goes through, the entire legal aid delivery system in Massachusetts will suffer.  LSC has a big budget battle ahead of it. The BBA has already tried to do its part.

Today (February 17th), BBA President Don Frederico sent every member of the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation a letter urging no cuts in LSC funding. We will also join the American Bar Association in D.C. this April to lobby for funding for Fiscal Year 2012.  We urge Congress to adequately fund legal services to provide access to justice for poor people in the United States.

N.B. Some organizations in Massachusetts, such as Greater Boston Legal Services, do not receive LSC funding, and they still need our help.  That budget battle – to hold onto level funding – has just begun in the state Legislature.  Please be sure to join us next week at Walk to the Hill.  The event has been rescheduled for Tuesday, February 22nd at 11:00 AM in the Great Hall at the State House.

-Kathleen Joyce

Government Relations Director

Boston Bar Association

Comments are disabled for this blog.  To share your comments e-mail issuespot@bostonbar.org

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Debunking Legal Aid Myths

On Monday, the Boston Herald’s website ran an item from the Associated Press mentioning Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Ireland’s support for civil legal aid and his appearance at the Equal Justice Coalition’s annual Walk to the Hill.  The 4-sentence story generated a few reader comments demonstrating how little some people know about the important work of legal service lawyers in Massachusetts.

Sure, lawyers can be easy targets for people venting their frustrations, but sometimes that venting defies reason.  “If you (Chief Justice Ireland) and all your lawyer buddies who make mad money by charging crazy amounts/hour are so into helping the poor, then do it for free,” wrote Boston Dave.

Some lawyers certainly make good money working at private law firms. But really, BostonDave, those who dedicate each of their days to providing legal services to the poor barely enough to make ends meet.  Legal services organizations are hurting and the poor people that need legal services the most are hurting badly.

Another ill-informed Herald reader referenced the recent coverage of the MBTA putting cameras on buses and trains to stop people from filing frivolous law suits:  “I suppose that the MBTA can expect to see a gigantic rise in the filing of lawsuits, despite the presence of cameras in the buses,” wrote Jestme7284. “Now the people with the free lawyers will check to see if there is a camera before falling down.”

Just for the record, Jestme7284, legal service lawyers don’t do personal injury cases, which are handled by the private bar, typically on a contingency fee basis. Legal services lawyers represent clients in cases involving fundamental sustenance, such as housing, employment, access to government benefits, and domestic violence.

A word about the attorneys at big firms that show up at Walk to the Hill…Many of these lawyers give generously of their time, accepting pro bono assignments from organizations such as the Volunteer Lawyers Project. They also give generously of their money to charities providing legal aid for poor people.

At the Walk to the Hill event, they will take the time to meet with their legislators to talk about the importance of public funding for legal services.  Walk to the Hill is a symbolic showing of the legal profession’s solidarity in recognizing that everyone deserves access to justice – and not just those that can afford lawyers.

Unfortunately dumb jokes and ill-informed comments about lawyers are nothing new. But legal aid for the poor should be the one thing that all of us can agree is a good thing.  Alas this year the weather didn’t cooperate, and Walk to the Hill has been rescheduled for Tuesday, February 22nd.  We hope you’ll show up and demonstrate your support for legal services.

-Kathleen Joyce

Government Relations Director

Boston Bar Association

Comments are disabled for this blog.  To share your comments e-mail issuespot@bostonbar.org

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized