Today’s Globe reports that the District Attorneys of Massachusetts want a raise. They should get it – period. According to the article, entry level prosecutors make about $35,000 a year, and five years later they can be expected to be earning $40,000. Chump change compared to what they can expect in private practice – and not enough to handle college and law school loans, never mind a mortgage and kids’ college tuitions.
This (moreso than raising judges’ salaries, which I also think is a good idea but which is IMHO less important) is an honest-to-goodness “tough on crime” issue. If we can’t attract competent lawyers to be prosecutors, and we can’t keep them there more than a year or two, we simply cannot get the machinery of justice to work efficiently. In fact, the Globe says that state spending on prosecutors is $30 million less than state spending on defense lawyers. Something’s seriously wrong there.
So let’s hear it, Mr. Patrick, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Gabrieli, Ms. Healey, Mr. Mihos. Do you support a substantial long-term increase in the salaries of the states’ district attorneys? If not, why not? If so, how will you pay for it?
The ADA’s deserve a raise. However, for Dan Conley to claim public safety is being compromised because of low pay is nonsensical. Many lawyers today are seeking any work in the field they can find and the misconception is that all of them can find well-paying private sector jobs and they’re all doing it for “public service.” Dan Conley should make sure his front line prosecutors are well-trained (which they are) and accept that most ADA’s are there for experience and move on after 3-5 years. Even if the raise happens, most ADA’s will continue to move on.
the best way to build an effective organization?
<
p>
If the public sector is always second-class in skill and experience to the private sector, the public sector loses out.
<
p>
I’m not a lawyer, but investing well in good public services (as opposed to running a farm team for the private firms) ought to be basic tenet of democratic (and Democratic)government. We’ve seen what happens when we invest in cut-rate “leadership.” Why not pay for quality service?
In fact, the Globe says that state spending on prosecutors is $30 million less than state spending on defense lawyers. Something’s seriously wrong there.
<
p>
I agree that ADA’s should get better pay as well, and sure, ti should be up there with defense lawyers. But be careful not to make it as if public defenders are doing well–they often get awful pay too. Moreover, they’re often reviled for who they defend, despite the fact that without them, innocent people would be railroaded even more than they are today, and Constitutional rights to trial would go out the window for poor defendants.
but there seems to be a whole lot of advocating for raises within public legal work. Judges, DAs, etc.
<
p>
I’m not saying that they don’t deserve it, and I understand the discrepency between public and private sectors resulting in the best qualified lawyers ending up in the private sector.
<
p>
But, the same goes for teachers, particularly math & science. The same goes for people in the Dept of Revenue. The same goes for lots of government positions. Why are you guys at BMG working so hard for the lawyers, of all folks?
$35k a year is about the same, if not less than teachers, no?
ADAs are the lowest paid employees in most courthouses in Massachusetts, including probation officers, court officers, judges, clerks, support staff, and maintenance/cleaning. They deserve a fair wage.
<
p>
However, I also agree it is bad policy to compare duty attorneys with ADAs on salary. Duty attorneys make a better hourly (as do people at Burger King and Wal-Mart) – but duty attorneys must fund support staff (if any) telephone, travel, fax, copier, office space, CLE, and the true killer – health insurance. The bottom line is that both sides are dramatically underpaid.
in the district attorney ‘s office ?. If the law firms donated lawyers to work pro bono it would be a simple solution. Then those lawyers who make $500/hr on criminal cases would not complain because the system is so slow. They would basically be helping themselves.
<
p>
We now have court appointed Masters who are private lawyers that are appointed to take the work load off judges. We have court appointed Receivers and Bankruptcy trustees. I see no reason why it can’t work for prosecuters in certain no brainer routine cases that reduce workload. You would probably get better quality. And guess what ? No need to raise taxes.
all of your skill and knowledge to a private firm, it remains in their hands. You lose talent and ability when you strip the public service side of government of resources.
<
p>
Sure it may mean some monetary savings in the short-run, but what happens when a case comes up and all of the institutional knowledge on that case is off working in a private firm and not readily available?
<
p>
Market fundamentalism is as bad as every other form of fundamentalism.
works for the Suffolk D.A. for 6 months pro bono , I suggest it solves the problem. Very simple solution. Why doesn’t that work?
Many big firms, including Ropes & Gray, have a program where they send mid-level associates to the DA’s office for 6 months. Great trial experience for the young lawyers, and the DA’s office gets a talented lawyer for a little while. But that’s no way to build up an efficient operation – those people cycle in and out all the time, so there’s no continuity, no institutional memory, nothing that builds a long-term successful operation. Investigating and prosecuting criminals is a large and very important operation that cannot and should not be expected to operate on the largesse of private law firms sending junior lawyers over when economic conditions allow them to do so. This has always been an area that the government runs, and it should continue to do so.
I don’t know why we strip public institutions to the bone and then gripe about their inability to complete a task. Rather, I think a lot of public servants do damn well for what little they get paid and for what little resources they are given to work with.
<
p>
Again, the Grover Norquist, Anarchist’s Cookbook style of government just does not cut it.
Mike Festa was all over this during his short-lived run as Middlesex County DA candidate. His idea was to have the police prosecutors handle some of the routine cases that didn’t require an ADA, so you could cut down the number of ADAs, and raise the pay of those that were left.
<
p>
That seemed like a sensible idea to me.
ADAs are prohibitted from doing outside legal work. That’s why they are also Zamboni operators.
<
p>
Teachers can tutor outside the classroom.
<
p>
Lawyers must get a JD–loans tend to be high.
<
p>
The General Court has an awful lot of legislators moonlighting as defense attorneys (or is it Vice-versa?).
<
p>
I hardly think they will suppor the raises for ADAs, their opposition.
Becky: I cannot allow your ignorant and uninformed opinion to go without comment. Do you know how many defense lawyers practice while members of the Legislature? How many small business owners? How many realtors? How many consultants? Oh, how many former prosecutors? Enlighten yourself Becky; seek answers to these questions and watch your preconceptions vanish!
or are you just into attacking people? The difference between BMG and the screamfest that is the conservative media is that we rely on solid sources and practitioners for answers.
<
p>
if you have some evidence to prove Becky otherwise you ought to either provide it or go crawling back to the screamosphere. don’t let the enlightenment hit you in the arse on the way out đŸ˜‰
Relax dude, deep breath, hold, hold, hold, ok release…repeat 2x….now, you ok?
works when you’re a pill-poppin’shock jock, but not in a serious debate.
<
p>
note how you never provided any evidence for your attacks. rather this is par for the course —
<
p>
<
p>
wow
Tell me how public safety is not compromised when inexperienced prosecutors make errors that result in mistrials, when fathers can go back home and traumatize their children again, when drug dealers can go back on the streets and continue the life?
<
p>
The point is the conflict of interest that defense attorneys (oh, yeh–if they are not practicing, they are not trying to help their friends) are by virtue of the agonistic system, opposed to prosecutors. Yes, even if they were formerly known as ADAs. If newspaper start printing stories about how prosecutors are well paid, I’ll start believing otherwise.
<
p>
Even though DiMasi (who’s a good guy–don’t get me wrong)was an ADA, he is still a criminal defense attorney.
<
p>
http://www.massbar.org/publications/lawyersjournal/article.php?c_id=7459&vt=2
<
p>
“DiMasi, a criminal defense attorney, missed the initial House debate on MelanieĂ¢Â€Â™s Bill, the anti-drunken driving package, because he was in Las Vegas. He gained more critics when he picked other practicing defense attorneys, including the billĂ¢Â€Â™s most vocal foe, Rep. Eugene OĂ¢Â€Â™Flaherty, D-Chelsea, to work out a compromise version with the Senate. The version rushed through the House last week – so that OĂ¢Â€Â™Flaherty and other legislators on DiMasiĂ¢Â€Â™s leadership team could catch a flight to Europe – lacked several of the most powerful provisions of the original plan.”
(http://ledger.southofboston.com/articles/2005/10/26/news/news10.txt)
<
p>
http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/05200250.asp
“As it turned out, however, the HouseĂ¢Â€Â™s newly unveiled anti-gang bill largely replicates that of the Senate. Written by Speaker DiMasi, it would assuage defense attorneys and civil libertarians by allowing defense attorneys whose clients were denied access to grand-jury testimony to challenge that denial at a hearing. But the core idea of the Senate bill Ă¢Â€Â” that some defendants shouldnĂ¢Â€Â™t be trusted with the testimony against them Ă¢Â€Â” remains in place. The House took up DiMasiĂ¢Â€Â™s bill this week.”
<
p>
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=46727&format=
We need more politicians not afraid to stand up to the ignorant yet emotional crowd who use the name of a dead girl to justify each and every tid bit of a complex statute, regardless of reality.
<
p>
The mistrials you point to are not happening. Your misconceptions would change if you spent some time in the district courts.
The young ada’a are the ones making less money. The experienced ones are maing over $70,000 and some over $100,000.
<
p>
New ADA jobs are competitive and tough to get. They work in the district courts and perhaps a year or 2 in superior court. The exzperience is only equaled by those working for the Committee for Public Counsel Services. (Not bar advocates) They make a little less money than most of their law school peers. Most law school grads don’t get big paying jobs. If you pay the new ada’a more they won’t leave. You want the turnover at that level.
<
p>
They make enough.
DAs are almost entirely free to set salaries for their assistants, so there can be big discrepancies. ADAs fresh out of law school tend to make $35k; even the top assistants rarely make more than $100k. When Bill Delahunt was a DA he somewhat-famously (at least among DAs) paid his first assistant more than he made.
<
p>
You make a very good point in differentiating between CPCS and bar advocates. I think others have been confusing the two, or lumping them together in previous posts. Bar advocates do just fine because they still get paid hourly and they have the rest of their private practice (though bar advocates were the cause of controversy last year when they claimed they would stop accepting cases without a pay hike).
<
p>
The senior ADAs in most offices, the unit chiefs and chief trial counsels, and just about anyone else who handles big cases make good money and are almost always career people.
<
p>
You’re right that turnover of ADAs is good. It is good for young attorneys who get experience, and the public who gets qualified and vigorous representation. While I’d like to see some help for ADAs and public defenders, perhaps a law school loan repayment assistnce program based on years worked as a prosecutor, the base pay is fine with me.
<
p>
Public service isn’t supposed to be about getting rich. The reward is in not having to defend the bad guys (and before I get a 6th Amendement speech, I too agree everyone ought to have counsel, regardless of how heinous the charge).
We’re just talking about paying competitive wages. Obviously, the DA’s offices are never going to be on a par with big law firms. But neither should they ask young lawyers to go further into debt.
I was inarticulate in my comment, apologies. I think you’re right to say that it is fundamentally unfair to ask people willing to participate in public service to shoulder such a heavy burden. I am still getting used to the act of writing down my reactions to others, rather than just letting them run through my head. It requires much more consideration.
Many attorneys fresh out of law school are earning starting salaries less than $40,000. Check it out. Shed no tears for these little ADAs
I think that there is a large misconception that defense attorneys make more than ADAs. Many defense attorneys make a better hourly rate but have overhead that cuts into that rate. They also have to pay for health insurance and other expenses that ADAs do not. Also, remember that Public Defenders start at the same level as ADAs. Most importantly is a supply and demand issue. I know ADAs who are told to intern and then work a fwe months for nothing to have a chance, A CHANCE, at a job. When the District Attorneys start treating the applicants more fairly then I will back a raise for the ADAs. Although I do wish my friends and collegues the best. The Globe article should also not the numbers difference between defense attorneys representing indigent clients and the number of ADAs. Lastly to keep in mind, while I want a safe city, home and environment, I think that Defense Attorneys take a bum rap. We protect the Innocent as much as the Guilty by standing up for the Guilty. Everyone hates us until they need us.
<
p>
I also think the best way would be to give decent raises to those who prove they want to stay. Give raises when they reach certain year plateaus and prove they are worthy of the office. I also think that they, like public defenders, should have some sort of loan forgiveness program.
<
p>
cheers
I agree that assistant district attorneys are underpaid, as are public defenders for that matter. In addition, both sides of the publicly funded criminal bar are severely overworked. Much of that is from criminalized, victimless drug activity and real drug-related crimes. The workload for both groups would be significantly reduced by decriminalization of most drug offenses. And this would greatly reduce the collateral costs that result from drug-related crime, to help pay for salary increases
–even after the Byrne grants are deducted.