Committee for Public Counsel Services v. Middlesex and Suffolk District Courts
What's at Stake
For more than two decades, criminal defendants in Massachusetts have experienced a recurring counsel crisis, with defendants periodically going unrepresented due to low attorney compensation rates. Despite many opportunities, the Legislature has failed to raise rates high enough to remedy the constitutional violation. At present, the compensation rate for district court cases is $75 per hour. Consequently, in a case brought by the Committee for Public Counsel Services鈥攖he Massachusetts public defender agency鈥攖he ACLU of Massachusetts and the ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative filed an amicus brief urging the Court to hold that the statute setting attorney compensation rates is unconstitutional. This case has important implications for the right to counsel and access to justice in Massachusetts.
Summary
Over the last twenty years, Massachusetts courts have given the Legislature ample opportunity to remedy the constitutional crisis caused by low compensation for appointed counsel. Yet the crisis has repeatedly flared, leaving hundreds of defendants at a time鈥攊ncluding individuals in pretrial custody鈥攚ithout representation. Although the Legislature raised rates in 2005, the increase was insufficient to stave off the counsel crisis that followed. Over the next fifteen years, the Legislature raised rates from $53 to $60鈥攁n amount that, when adjusted for inflation, did not even keep up with the 2005 rate.
Most recently, in August 2025, the Legislature authorized a mere $10 hourly increase and simultaneously added an antitrust provision that exposes private counsel to civil and criminal liability if they agree to refuse new assignments unless rates increase. Even if only 25% of appointed counsel in one county decline cases, they can face civil or criminal liability.
Meanwhile, since May 27, 2025, more than 7,200 defendants have gone unrepresented, of whom 11 more than 1,300 have been in custody.
As our amicus brief explains, a different approach is now required to address the current counsel crisis. The ACLU brief asks the Court to hold not only that the current statutory compensation scheme is unconstitutional, but also to remedy that violation by ordering an interim compensation package to take immediate effect and remain in effect until the Legislature replaces the unconstitutional statute with a constitutional one. Further, given that the Legislature鈥檚 prior attempts to resolve this crisis have repeatedly failed, the brief asks the Court to adopt a clear framework to determine whether a proposed legislative solution is constitutionally sufficient to lift an interim judicial remedy. Our brief explains that any compensation scheme must account for location-specific inflation and, if the antitrust provision remains, the risk of enhanced liability for attorneys taking appointed cases in Massachusetts.
The Court heard argument on November 5, 2025, and the case is pending.
Legal Documents
-
ACLU and ACLU-MA Amicus Brief
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Affiliate: Massachusetts