Here is what the State had to say – more or less “We will pay you someday. Might be a few weeks” – See letter received via email today. Any legislators reading this? Can you move payment into the “those attorneys matter and we appreciate what they do” column? See:
Committee for Public Counsel Services
44 Bromfield Street, Boston, MA 02108
July 11, 2016
|
|
|
Please share widely!
seamusromney says
The legislature plays this game every year and it always gets funded in the end. No big deal as long as you know how to budget like a responsible adult. It’s like paying your taxes. You know you’re gonna be short that month unless you’ve set aside money in advance.
It’s hard to be motivated by the plight of people making six figures. Now, if you have a story about how the overall pay rates are pushing qualified people away (and for the Superior Court work, you might, but this ain’t it), that would actually be interesting.
SomervilleTom says
Let me see if I understand your premise — “You’ll get the money eventually, so shut up and stop whining”. I wonder if your mortgage company will accept a letter like that instead of your regular monthly payment. I wonder how long you’ll be able to keep your nice new car on the road while sending such letters instead of car payments.
I wonder if it’s the six figure compensation that bothers you, or perhaps instead the work done by these underpaid advocates.
Here’s what I think might make a difference — make these legislators PERSONALLY responsible for the bills they refuse to approve payment of, to be reimbursed by the state when the funding is eventually approved.
The executives and directors of a Massachusetts corporation are similarly held personally responsible for paying wages and salary for work done by their employees — that’s one reason why payroll checks are more easily cashed throughout the state.
If this financial monkey were placed squarely on the back of the legislators responsible for approving these payments, I strongly suggest that the necessary approvals would somehow mysteriously ZIP through the legislature within hours, if not minutes.
terrymcginty says
Compensation is limited to well under that regardless of the work. My father was a building custodian so I respect honest work- but the custodians make more than the defenders. Please educate yourself before opening. Thank you Somerville Tom for understanding something about the topic unlike so many others.
terrymcginty says
Are you kidding???
AmberPaw says
And for those, like myself, who do the child welfare cases, it is very hard, no I would say impossible, to make your alleged six figure incomes. What shows is that you have not a clue about what such legal work takes, what it is like, who who represents children and families in juvenile court and the intense, difficult nature of that work. And of course there is a chronic shortage of attorneys willing to be the lowest paid person in the court room, representing homeless teens and incarcerated parents, and ensuring that children removed from their parents are in school [not an easy one, believe me]. So, yes, many limit their number of cases and grow practices and quit accepting care and protection or child requiring assistance case work. My hourly rate on private family law work is five times what a care and protection or emergency guardianship pays. Some judges have learned, though, if they have their secretary call me and say, “We need an attorney to represent a 13 year old who saw her mother murdered and no one is taking cases in June” I am one of those who does not say no. Yeah. Right. I must be one of the dumb ones, Seamus.
jas says
Between caps on both numbers of cases and number of hours – bar advocates certainly do not make six figures. And do not be fooled by potential gross amounts – remember that bar advocates are usually paying office rent, malpractice insurance, have no benefits (so paying own health insurance). As some have noted – for most attorneys it cost about $50 an hour to keep their offices open!
hesterprynne says
and certainly not timely, but the Gov has submitted a supplemental budget that includes $42 million for these unpaid bills. Here’s the link if you want to track its progress.
AmberPaw says
AND that is pay for work already done ! Should anyone have to beg to be paid for work they have already done, in difficult work, where there is a chonic shortage because cases involving humans in crisis are NOT where the money is in the practice of law!
hesterprynne says
Is there a Contracts Clause issue here?
jas says
I do not believe the cut is retroactive – it is in the supplemental budget filed by Baker for the coming year. This is a different supplemental bill than the one filed to pay the outstanding FY16 claims.
The legislature cut the CPCS funds for FY017 – so, per usual, it is not sufficient to pay the bills for the year (which is why there always needs to be a supplemental bill at the end of each fiscal year). Good for Baker not wanting to play that game but bad for cutting back on the puny raise from last year (think it was like $3 an hour).