Legal

Dacier’s Take on. . .the State of the Massachusetts Economy

Published by on March 20, 2014

To better understand the funding of our justice system, we invited Michael Widmer, the President of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, to our monthly Council meeting to educate us on topics like post-recession recovery, Massachusetts state revenue stats, and what it all means when it comes to the Massachusetts economy and our state budget.

Here’s a quick look at just some of what we learned…

  • A major concern is the stability of state revenues. The bulk of the Massachusetts revenue base, which right now stands at $22 billion, comes from personal income tax – in other words, the number of people employed in Massachusetts drives our revenue. As the increased reliance on technology to perform jobs previously held by people and an aging work force shrink the job market and slow its growth, the state revenues will decrease, making it more difficult to provide funding for all aspects of state government.
  • Sixty percent of the state budget goes towards non-discretionary items like healthcare, education, local aid, and debt service.  The remaining forty percent of the budget gets allocated towards discretionary items, including the judiciary, education, public safety, and other areas that improve our quality of life.
  • The bottom line is that we will see tighter budgeting in the upcoming years, as well as a slower growth in jobs. There will be some revenue and job growth, but it will not be a restoration to the way the economy was before.

It seems that the economy – both nationally and in Massachusetts – is still struggling, and this is likely to be “the new normal” for quite some time. A recent report titled “MTF Forecast: Modest Growth in Tax Revenues in 2014 and 2015” by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation sheds even more light on what to expect in the upcoming year.

You can imagine that Mr. Widmer’s comments got our attention. We then asked a few questions, such as: Why is Massachusetts one of the most expensive states in the nation? Part of the answer is positive, as Mr. Widmer explained. Massachusetts is a high wage state with higher incomes than most; but this high income gives Massachusetts the highest level of income disparity. Also, Massachusetts has the richest unemployment benefit structure in the US, and this is very burdensome to businesses. There are also higher energy and housing costs tied in as well.

What does this all mean for court funding, which is what we have been thinking about all year? It looks like it still won’t be clear sailing as the state strives to make up ground and stabilize its revenues and spending. Mr. Widmer had some advice for us as we continue to advocate for funding for our justice system: “stay the course.” In this kind of permanent budget squeeze, spending pressures are immense, so those who are persistent, visible, and patient – demonstrating an understanding of the budget process –are more likely to succeed. He urged us to be thankful for any amount of additional funding given the strict budget constraints.

It is true that these are difficult times for everybody, but we cannot lose hope, and we cannot stop advocating for increased funding for the courts and our entire justice system. We may not reach 100 percent in our requests, but we should celebrate what we do receive – every little bit counts.

Dacier’s Take on…Sentencing Reform and Re-entry

Published by on February 26, 2014

We attended  MassINC’s “Reform, Re-entry and Results: Change and Progress in the Massachusetts Criminal Justice System” at UMass Boston last week, and we were delighted to run into Trial Court Chief Justice Paula Carey and Court Administrator Harry Spence, along with dozens of criminal justice experts we have worked with in the past. We have long believed that mandatory minimum sentences serve to place an undue burden on our courts. We also know that sending an offender to prison when an alternative sentence would be more appropriate will increase the likelihood that the person will reoffend rather than becoming a self-sustaining member of our community.

Here’s what gave us reason for optimism going forward. A survey conducted by the MassINC Polling Group yielded 6 key findings:

  1. Massachusetts residents want the criminal justice system to focus on prevention and rehabilitation – two areas where the current system is not seen as effective;
  2. Two-thirds want reforms that result in fewer people sent to prison, reversing previous high levels of support for new prisons;
  3. Residents show little support for mandatory minimum sentencing;
  4. The public sees drug use as a health problem rather than a crime, and seeks an increased focus on rehabilitation rather than incarceration;
  5. Concerns about supervision cloud pictures of public support ;
  6. In areas where more inmates are released, residents agree with the broad, pro-reform sentiment of the rest of the state.

As you may know, we have recently written about the Mental Health Court in Plymouth and the Homeless Court at Pine Street, and will in the future be writing about the Drug Court, all initiatives focused on addressing the underlying cause of the offender’s behavior. The goal is to prevent these people from becoming regulars in the criminal justice system. And we applaud the Massachusetts Trial Court for making such specialty courts a priority in its strategic plan.

Criminal justice reform has long been at the heart of the Boston Bar Association’s mission. In 1991, we and the group now known as Community Resources for Justice issued a report saying that “Public safety is not enhanced by speeches to ‘get tough on crime’. . . The superficial appeal of ‘mandatory sentences’ must be resisted in favor of more rational, safe and cost-effective policy-making.”  If at times we felt we were swimming against the tide of popular opinion, we have never relented in our efforts to undo what we believe was flawed public policy.

At the same time, we have worked to facilitate re-entry, amid a keen awareness that 97 per cent of incarcerated people will ultimately return to the community. In the public policy space, we released a study on parole practices and community re-integration in 2002, arguing that Massachusetts needs a system of presumptive parole. And we have long advocated for Criminal Offender Record Information reform.

It is from that perspective that we applaud the work of MassINC and look forward to working with others to follow up on their survey with sound public policy reforms.

Dacier’s Take on. . . Gun Violence

Published by on February 19, 2014

The ink had barely dried on “Strategies for Reducing Gun Violence in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” a report commissioned by House Speaker Robert DeLeo in the wake of the mass shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, when we heard about Boston’s 10th homicide victim, a 9 year old named Jan Marcos Pena. According to news reports, his 14 year old brother was charged with involuntary manslaughter and illegal gun possession.

Based on what we read in the report, Massachusetts already has some of the strongest gun laws in the nation. Of all the states, only Hawaii has a lower rate of gun death than Massachusetts.  While some 13 per cent of Massachusetts households report having a gun, compare that to other parts of the country, where 1/3 of households have guns. While the gun death rate nationwide is over 3 times higher than it is in Massachusetts, more than 2,000 people in the Bay State died as the result of gunfire during the most recent decade.

We think that’s way too many, as does the report commissioned by Speaker DeLeo.  The report concludes that we need to do more to prevent gun violence, and includes numerous recommendations about what Massachusetts can do, with an eye toward legislation. The report is an excellent resource for anybody who cares about this very serious issue.

Here in the City of Boston, the Boston Globe reports that the death toll from shootings in January was higher than any time in the last several years. Just over a year ago, WBUR did a segment about Massachusetts gun crimes rising despite strict laws. During the course of an interview with Professor James Alan Fox, a professor of criminology, law and public policy at Northeastern University, he cited two compelling facts: (1) Guns recovered from Massachusetts crimes were not purchased in Massachusetts, but in states with far more lenient gun laws; and (2) Over half the guns recovered in crimes can be linked to fewer than 1% of gun dealers.

We read that mass shootings – such as the 20 children and 6 adults massacred at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, the 7 co-workers shot at Edgewater Technology by a disgruntled employee using a variety of firearms, or the 12 students and 1 teacher killed at Columbine – are a statistically small portion of shootings overall. But that’s not much comfort to those of us who have lived through these events.

We live in a nation where the sale of so many goods –including barbeque grills, cribs, gasoline, swimming pools, pharmaceuticals and all-terrain vehicles come under tight regulation. Even with the protections afforded by our Constitution under the Second Amendment, it seems to us guns need to be regulated more effectively.

Dacier’s Take on. . .Abraham Lincoln and James B. Conroy’s New Book

Published by on February 12, 2014

We just read a fascinating book on the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, Our One Common Country. Written by James B. Conroy, a partner at Donnelly, Conroy & Gelhaar, the book focuses on the Hampton Roads Peace Conference of 1865.

If you’re not a Civil War buff, the Hampton Roads Conference was a negotiation with Southern peace envoys convened secretly by President  Lincoln, to begin the process of healing our country, and ending the war by agreement rather than by conquest.

“Abraham Lincoln is the only American president in history to meet face to face with the enemy in the midst of a shooting war,” says Conroy.  “Lincoln did not set out to vanquish his opponents but to get the parties to a reasonable resolution of their differences as quickly as possible.”

We asked Conroy many questions concerning Lincoln’s unique qualities. We also discussed President Lincoln’s willingness to reach across the aisle to deal with political adversaries for the good of the Union.

Here are some additional tidbits Conroy shared with us about President Lincoln:

–          He had a great understanding of the human character and a great empathy for his adversaries as well as his friends, which in turn prevented him from demonizing the enemy and made it possible for him to reach out to them;

–          His core principles were the preservation of the Union and the notion of equal opportunity and equality under the law, within the context of his times;

–          He was true to those core principles while leading the country through the worst crisis of its history, but willing to make compromises and form alliances with people with whom he shared very little;

–          He was incredibly generous and magnanimous to his enemies, political as well as military.

The peace envoys were President Lincoln and William H. Seward for the Union and Alexander Stephens, John A. Campbell and Robert M.T. Hunter for the Confederacy. Ironically, all were seasoned trial attorneys who knew each other well.  Conroy says that even though the peace envoys failed to achieve consensus, the lesson to be learned is this: “You have to offer an adverse party a face-saving way out of a dispute – coupled with some tangible gain that is of minor consequence or at least reasonably tolerable to the party that holds the better hand. A negotiated resolution is almost always preferable to a war.”

The political courage that President Lincoln demonstrated should serve as an example for our leaders today. Imagine how much more efficient our society would be if more compromises were made in the interest of the Constitution and our country.

We look forward to hearing Jim Conroy speak at the BBA to discuss his book in the near future.

Dacier’s Take On. . .the Probate and Family Court

Published by on February 5, 2014

Knowing that the Probate and Family Court Department is one of the busiest, we wanted to gather more information about its challenges and characteristics. So we recently walked over to the John Adams Courthouse to spend an hour with Chief Justice Angela Ordoñez.

During the course of our meeting, she shared with us several observations:

She sees staff in a number of divisions of the Probate and Family Court struggling to keep up with their duties, despite a strong work ethic. When people fall behind in their responsibilities, one very immediate consequence is delay in the issuance of a summons – without which there can be no service of process.  There are also delays in docketing and scanning. For example, attorneys wanting to enter a complaint for modification or contempt cannot do so without a summons. Pro se litigants, of which this court sees many, need a summons to be served before they can get on the schedule to be heard. Delays in docketing may have an impact on the appeal process.

In a court whose judges are expected to do a lot of writing, law clerks are essential for getting decisions out in a timely fashion. Not having enough law clerks may impact timely rulings. Chief Justice Ordoñez also points to a rise in the number of litigants with limited English proficiency, and the difficulty of having interpreters available in the Probate and Family Court.

Because disputes among families can be fraught with emotion, security is a great concern.   She observes that she recently received an email from an attorney citing two violent encounters in waiting areas where there is no security. Given the fact that litigants may have children with them, this is particularly concerning.

In another instance, two warring families showed up at the court unexpectedly. Witnessing emotional outbursts, a court officer tried to separate the parties. The court officer suffered significant injuries in the resulting melee.

The ramifications of what happens in this court go beyond a dispute between two parents. In making its decisions, the court must take into consideration the impact of their rulings on children and how they grow up. Placing a child with an abusive parent, for example, puts the child at immediate risk, and may sow the seeds for an abusive young adult down the line.

Like other courts, Probate and Family court is affected by economic cycles, in its own unique way. The national economic crisis that began in 2008 sparked an uptick in court activity, accompanied by an increase in unrepresented litigants unable to afford legal representation. Chief Justice Ordoñez explains that research seems to indicate that people may hold off filing for divorce in a tough economy. In Massachusetts, the economic downturns seemed to lead to an increase in child support modification complaints and contempt complaints – where those already separated or divorced or never married parents initiate more court activity.

She speculates that when the economy is better, people already separated or divorced may come back for a modification seeking an increase in child support. She hopes a better economy means a reduction in contempt actions because more people have steady jobs, making it possible for them to keep current on child support obligations.

We left our meeting with the Chief Justice with a great appreciation for the specialized skills required of judges and their staff in this high volume court, and the importance of their work in a civilized society.

Dacier’s Take on. . . Martin Luther King Jr.

Published by on January 29, 2014

More than a week has passed since we commemorated the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., a civil rights leader who fought injustice without resorting to violence. A politically astute clergyman, he rose from relative obscurity to become a thought leader of world renown, and the father of two major pieces of civil rights legislation.

As lawyers continuing to reflect on Dr. King’s legacy, much of what he said during his tragically brief time here on earth has the quality of timelessness. But for us, nothing resonates more powerfully than “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, a statement intuitive to all of us.

He wrote that line in April 1963 in “Letter from a Birmingham Jail ” an explanation about why the time had come to organize non-violent demonstrations to ensure that African Americans be accorded certain rights under the United States Constitution, the same rights white people took for granted. He made clear that he was in this struggle for the long haul, willing to bear the consequences of his actions.

The Birmingham marches and sit-ins in public spaces – in violation of a court order Dr. King considered unjust – sought the desegregation of department store facilities as well as fair hiring. By May of that same year, television footage of police using dogs and fire hoses against demonstrators, including children, provoked a national outcry against segregationists.

Dr. King’s “I have a dream” speech, delivered at The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in August 1963, seems embedded in the minds of any of us who lived through the ‘60’s, and of school children throughout the world today. The March helped build the momentum to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a major accomplishment for the civil rights movement and a milestone in helping to make real the promise of our Constitution.

The speech Dr. King delivered when he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964, described as “an often ignored masterpiece,” is beautifully emblematic of his style:

“After contemplation, I conclude that this award . . . is a profound recognition that nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political question of our time – the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression. Civilization and violence are antithetical concepts.”

By January of 1964, Dr. King turned his attention to seeking passage of a Voting Rights Act, signed into law on August 6, 1965. Again there was violence against protestors, but he encouraged them to exercise extreme self-restraint. He reasoned, correctly, that if the African-American vote continued to be unlawfully suppressed by those placing obstacles in the paths of those trying to register, nothing would change.

Dr. King was willing to risk his life to advance the cause of constitutional rights. Sadly, we lost this heroic advocate of non-violence to an assassin’s bullet in 1968, when he was just 39. We are deeply grateful for the changes he wrought, but we cannot help wonder what else he could have done had he been given the chance.

Dacier’s Take on. . .the Homeless Court

Published by on January 22, 2014
Dacier’s Take on. . .the Homeless Court

After blogging about the Plymouth Mental Health Court last month, we heard about another specialized court tailored to the needs of people whose legal problems are related to a lack of permanent housing. The only one of its kind in Massachusetts, the Homeless Court is run by Judge Kathleen E. Coffey, and is convened once a month – rotating between the Pine Street Inn and the Lemuel Shattuck Hospital Shelter. Now 2.5 years old, this court has no dedicated funding.

Judge Coffey’s goal is to “reach as many people as possible, and to assist the homeless in removing barriers and impediments that obstruct their ability to obtain housing, jobs, and other social benefits.” Chief among the obstacles that can derail the lives of people trying to start over are outstanding court fees and warrants.

She knows that people without a permanent mailing address are more likely to miss court dates than people with stable housing. She can also connect the dots in ways that aren’t necessarily apparent to those of us fortunate not to have experienced homelessness. For example, a homeless person “squatting” in property thought-to-be-abandoned can lead to charges of breaking and entering, plus trespassing. If she sees a shoplifting charge, she definitely wants to go one step further to determine whether or not the homeless defendant has a history of drug use.

We get the importance of putting a human face on an issue. So we’re going to tell you about Annie (not her real name), a 21-year-old woman who came before Judge Coffey on the day we dropped in on the session at Pine Street Inn.

Pine Street Inn

Photo credit to the Pine Street Inn.

Annie lived in foster care from age 8 until she aged out of the system at age 18. Her CPCS attorney, Jeff Garland, explains that his client was homeless – “couch surfing” and “squatting” – all of which came to an end after she was arrested on the aforementioned breaking and entering plus trespassing charges. Too poor to make bail, she spent 30 days in jail, ultimately sentenced to 1 year of administrative probation by a judge in the Dorchester Division of the BMC.

At this point, Annie has successfully completed her probation, and stayed out of any further trouble. She recently got into a residential program at Long Island Shelter, and is working on getting her G.E.D. After receiving mental health and drug assessments, she is about to start a program that will provide her with a job at the shelter.

Life is looking up for Annie, except for two problems. She owes $650 in court fees that she can’t afford to pay. Plus she’s got a probation warrant at Waltham District Court relating to a shoplifting incident that happened while she was homeless.

Satisfied that Annie is making a genuine effort to put her life on a positive track, Judge Coffey says she will waive the court fees, in effect liberating her from criminal justice system involvement. Assistant District Attorney Christina Miller agrees the disposition is appropriate, as does a probation officer.

As for the other impediment, Judge Coffey has her clerk get Annie on the docket for Waltham District Court next week. The judge feels confident that if the judge in Waltham sees the paper work from the session at Pine Street Inn, he too will remove the warrant.

Specialty courts in which human services providers and the courts can work cooperatively for the benefit of extremely vulnerable people have great promise. The Homeless Court provides options and redemption for people who face more challenges in one day than many of us face in a lifetime.

One final note. . . Keen on giving credit where credit is due, Judge Coffey has urged us to mention that the help she’s gotten from people like District Attorney Dan Conley, Elizabeth Condron, Volunteer and Corporate Relations Coordinator at Pine Street Inn, the Boston Police Department, and the Committee for Public Counsel Services – saying the Homeless Court would not survive without their help.

Dacier’s Take on. . .Dan Rea’s Nightside and Talk Radio

Published by on January 15, 2014
Dacier’s Take on. . .Dan Rea’s Nightside and Talk Radio

Last week, my colleague Martin F. Murphy and I went over to WBZ-Radio to appear on Dan Rea’s Nightside. In case you don’t know, Dan is a lawyer and talk show host who understands legal issues as well as any journalist we know.

So when he invited us on to discuss the Boston Bar Association’s recently announced opposition to the death penalty in federal cases, we chose to take this opportunity for a very public discussion of why we believe that even in the most heinous of crimes, life-in-prison makes more sense than capital punishment. For the record, the BBA has opposed the death penalty in state cases for some 40 years.

We arrived at 10 p.m., ready to be interviewed by Dan for one hour, perhaps questioned by a handful of callers from up and down the East Coast.  We were absolutely confident that Dan had done his homework, because he enjoys a reputation for always being well prepared.

for web

With Dan Rea (center) and Foley Hoag’s Martin Murphy.

We could tell Dan had read our recently published study documenting the fact that the death penalty has far too high a potential for the execution of innocent people, that capital punishment has a disproportionate impact on members of racial and ethnic minorities, and that pursuing the death penalty is an inordinately expensive gesture, inconsistent with the sensible allocation of resources in a criminal justice system already laboring under great financial strain.

Dan is the consummate gentleman. He treats his guests with absolutely courtesy, and lets them have their say – regardless of whether he shares their views. And he demands the same of his callers, warning those struggling to “dial it back” that he will use his cut button if they cross the line.

At the same time, Dan put Marty and me on the hot seat, asking some very pointed questions – in turn triggering tough questions from callers. For example, he asked us about cases in which murder victims were young children, entire families were killed with extreme cruelty and atrocity, and cases in which the murderer violated an oath to protect his country. He also asked us about cases in which the accused has admitted to his heinous acts.

Arguing for particular principles is always a challenge. Marty and I did our best to highlight capital punishment’s systemic flaws – even when the facts of particular cases do not appear to raise questions about innocence or racial discrimination, or when a crime in the public spotlight is so outrageous that focus on issues like cost or delay may seem out of place given the suffering of victims and their families.

Judging by the flashing lights on Dan’s phone, it’s clear that the death penalty remains an emotionally charged issue. By the time 11 p.m. rolled around, our host asked if we wouldn’t mind staying for another hour to accommodate more callers.

We worked hard to convey the message that we absolutely understand the pain involved in the murder of a loved one, and that those convicted of heinous crimes are dangerous people needing to be confined in maximum security prisons. At the same time, we wanted to leave Dan’s listeners with the message that an injustice for one person is an injustice for all.

We left the studio at midnight, thanking Dan for giving us the opportunity to exchange views and defend our ideas to people with a completely different take on the issue. If you would like to listen to the broadcast, click here.

Dacier’s Take on . . . Plymouth Mental Health Court

Published by on January 8, 2014

Underscoring our view that specialty courts are the wave of the future, we were eager to witness Judge Rosemary B. Minehan presiding over a session of Plymouth Mental Health Court. We’d heard that she is literally changing people’s lives with an innovative approach to a seemingly intractable problem, and we decided to visit in late December.

A Plymouth District Court judge for more than 20 years, Judge Minehan developed her plan for the Mental Health Court in 2010 after realizing that many of the cases she was seeing in the court room involved defendants with mental illness. The problem the Mental Health Court is designed to address can best be described like this: An individual with a mental illness such as PTSD, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia or depression is convicted of a misdemeanor or minor felony, and receives probation. Without treatment, the mental illness makes it difficult if not impossible for this individual to successfully complete probation, and move on.

Think about the old saw that when mental health services are not provided, the prison becomes the “default provider.” Untreated mental illness is likely to result in a cycle of frequent interactions with law enforcement, hospital emergency rooms, and the court.

Who are the participants at the Plymouth Mental Health Court? They are post adjudication defendants on probation. Represented by counsel, they sign an agreement requiring that they do 4 things: (1) Adhere to an evidence-based mental health treatment plan tailored to their needs, with arrangements to be made by one of the two social workers; (2) agree to stay free of alcohol or drugs; (3) come before the judge 3 times per month; and (4) fulfill any other conditions required by the terms of their probation.

Before going into the Court session, we talk with one of the social workers, Christopher Pike. Participants know they can call him if they are heading toward a crisis, or experiencing difficulty with compliance. If appropriate, he can arrange for their treatment protocol to be changed.

As each participant comes before her, Judge Minehan demonstrates empathy, compassion, but most of all, a commitment to holding the participant accountable for his behavior and helping him successfully complete his probation. “How are you?” she asks, addressing each one as Mr. or Ms. Two of them respond with “hanging in there,” and the judge says: “I know. This is a tough time of year. Everyone is pretending to be happy.”

Those who report that they are working get praise and encouragement from the judge. At the same time, she cautions a few to avoid the temptation of alcohol at family gatherings. She reminds one participant to avoid altercations with a neighbor, saying “You know if you lose your housing, everything falls apart. So the next time, just take a big breath.”

But it’s not all coaching. Judge Minehan queries both the social worker and a probation officer specifically assigned to the Mental Health Court about each participant’s compliance. In one instance, the judge requires that a new drug screen be performed. In another instance, the judge queries a participant about pain medication, and looks for documentation indicating it’s medically required for a specific condition.

Mental Health Court is labor intensive, as most participants are required to stay in the program for at least 6 months, and frequently more. Whereas a typical probationer in the District Court may have as little as 1 contact per month with a probation officer, a Mental Health Court participant may have daily contact with a probation officer.

The regular court appearances provide the opportunity for the social worker and the judge to recognize any change in a participant’s mental status, and intervene if necessary. Intervention could include anything from a psychiatric crisis evaluation, hospitalization, or other treatment options to stabilize the participant.

Judge Minehan has chaired the District Court Committee on Mental Health and Substance Abuse since 1998, has co-authored the Mass. Practice Book on Mental Health, and has extensive experience presiding over hearings involving civil commitment and the involuntary use of medication.

With some 15 participants at any one time, the Mental Health Court is funded by the Department of Mental Health. (Mental health courts can also be found at the BMC and in Springfield.)

We came away from our experience thinking this Mental Health Court is a beacon of hope and practicality, and encourage others to take notice.

Dacier’s Take on . . . “All I Want for the New Year”

Published by on January 1, 2014

As this holiday season draws to a close, and we begin to think about the challenges of 2014, we turned to our friends – all of whom are trying to help people with very basic needs – and put out the query: “What are your hopes for the New Year?”

Here are the answers we got:

Chief Judge Frank Bailey (U.S. Bankruptcy Court):

All I Want for the New Year Is…for every student to leave high school knowing that a $50 pizza dinner purchased on a credit card that bears interest of 22.8% over 10 years really costs $487.49….so my hope is that many BBA members will sign up to teach in the M. Ellen Carpenter Financial Literacy Program in 2014!

Robert Lewis (Clerk Magistrate, Boston Housing Court):

All I Want for the New Year Is…for the volunteer Lawyers for the Day at Housing Court to provide enough attorneys to not only assist pro se litigants on summary process day, but also to assist litigants during the criminal sessions. Housing Court has criminal jurisdiction over code violation cases that are more frequently brought against property owners, and often are not their fault. We at the Court are trying to improve the housing stock in the City of Boston – we’re not trying to punish people and throw them in jail – but these pro se litigants don’t always have the resources to work through the system and have their charges changed to civil charges. If there were volunteer attorneys to help walk them through the steps, it would be a tremendous help both to the court and to the public.

Tony Froio (Chair of the BBF’s Development Committee; Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi):

All I Want for the New Year Is…to meet – and exceed – the $625,000 fundraising goal for the Adams Benefit so that we may better support the community organizations that provide critical legal services assistance to those in need.

Manisha Bhatt (Greater Boston Legal Services):

All I Want for the New Year Is…to break the Walk to the Hill record! I would love to see 1,000 lawyers marching to the Statehouse on January 30, 2014, advocating for the underprivileged by urging their legislators to increase civil legal services funding.

Judge Robert Tochka (U.S. District Court for Massachusetts):

All I Want for the New Year Is…a one hundred percent participation rate in the Judicial Internship Program, which is an ambitious but nonetheless doable goal. Please consider taking on an intern during 2014 – you’ll be glad you did!

Shari Davis (Director of The Mayor’s Youth Council and The Boston Youth Fund):

All I Want for the New Year Is…for community members and youth advocates alike to REACH BACK and work together to enable and empower young people to grow into our future leaders with limitless potential. The Mayor’s Youth Council is one opportunity for volunteers interested in youth advocacy to be a part of the solution.

Mala Rafik (Rosenfeld Rafik & Sullivan):

All I Want for the New Year Is…for more attorneys to volunteer for the Lawyer Referral Services military panel – we need lawyers who focus on benefits claims, employment, tax, family law, and education. Military service members have sacrificed so much for our country. It is incumbent upon us as lawyers to express our gratitude and to show our respect by providing for their legal needs as they reacclimate after what is often an extremely stressful experience.

Josh Bruno (Boston Private Industry Council):

All I Want for the New Year Is…a record number of internship and job shadowing opportunities at Boston law firms for students in the BBA Summer Jobs Program, done in partnership with PIC and the City of Boston.