Anthony Benedetti and the Work of the Committee for Public Counsel Services: Fulfilling the Right To Counsel for Indigent Clients

Higher Callings Podcast 

Interview of Anthony Benedetti, Esq. 

Recorded November 3, 2021 

Host: Donald R. Frederico 

Don: This morning, I'm with Anthony Benedetti.

Anthony, good morning to you today. I know it's a busy time for you and I really appreciate your taking the time to appear on the podcast today.

Anthony: Don, my pleasure. Good morning to you too.

Don: So, I thought maybe we would start by just having you talk briefly about who you are, what organization you work for, and what you do there.

Anthony: Certainly. My name is Anthony Benedetti and I am the Chief Counsel at the Committee for Public Counsel Services. The Committee for Public Counsel Services, generally known as CPCS, is the Massachusetts state agency responsible for providing attorneys to people who cannot afford them, and in those cases where there is a constitutional right to counsel or a statutory right to counsel. And there are a whole range of cases in which that is the case.

Don: And you said you're Chief Counsel of that organization, CPCS, and you've been Chief Counsel since I think it was 2010. Is that right?

Anthony: Yes.

Don: And that was right around the time I met you. I think that was right around the time I met you because of work I was doing with the Boston Bar Association, but you've been with CPCS much longer than that. When did you start there?

Anthony: Yes. I started while a student at Suffolk Law School back in the early 1990s. I joined as a member of a new audit and oversight unit and that was created by the legislature within CPCS to oversee private attorney billing. So I had a chance to learn about that side of the work we do. Approximately 2,800 to 3,000 attorneys who take cases in all of our practice areas and bill us directly. And so that was a nice opportunity to learn about that side of the business.

I became an attorney in 1993 and so was a public defender, and I'm still a public defender even though I am in charge of the agency. But I started my work in Plymouth County, representing clients in all types of cases in the District Court and the Superior Court. Did that for a number of years and then became the agency General Counsel. And that work primarily entailed representing the agency with the executive branch, the legislative branch, advocating for our funding, we're almost 100% funded by the state, and representing our interests in legislative proposals that would affect our clients. And that includes legislation that we advocate in favor of and advocating against legislation that we believe would harm our clients.

Don: So, Anthony, I'm really looking forward to having this conversation with you about CPCS. I think that it's a system and an organization that the general public really has very little knowledge of and it does such important work. I really want to bring out a little bit some of the important work that it does and that you're involved with, but also talk a little bit about you and how you got interested in public defending work and representing indigent clients.

So why don't we start there? Tell me a little bit about where you grew up and a little bit about any influences you had early in your life that moved you in a path to ultimately oversee the representation of indigent clients in Massachusetts.

Anthony: Certainly. I am from the Boston area. I grew up in West Roxbury, went to public schools. My entire life, went to Boston, Latin School, something that I'm very proud of. I'm a big fan of Boston Latin School and the opportunities it provided to me. Went to Boston College. Studied history and political science.

And then once I graduated from college, I went to work for the legislature. I worked in the House of Representatives, I worked for the Ways and Means Committee as a budget policy analyst. And that is the committee that is responsible for dealing with not only the state budget, but any type of legislation that is going to cost the state money.

And as a fiscal policy analyst, my accounts all had to do with the legal system. CPCS was one of my accounts, the court system, the district attorneys, the Department of Youth Services, Department of Corrections, the sheriffs. So I really got quite an overview of the system and the different stakeholder agencies that were involved and the issues that were pertinent at that particular time. We're talking about the late eighties, and to be honest, many, many of those issues still exist today. And so then I went to law school.

Don: When you went to law school, did you go there with the intent to work as a public defender when you got out?

Anthony: No, I can't say that I am one of those people who knew very early on that I wanted to be a public defender. We have so many people at CPCS who knew pretty early on that that's what they wanted to do. That that was their calling. I knew I wanted to do government work. I wanted to make a difference. I wanted to contribute. And it became pretty clear pretty quickly in law school that what I wanted to do was be a public defender.

And so, I participated in classes that had to do with trial work. I participated in a defender program while at law school. And I was lucky enough to get hired as a public defender at CPCS.

Don: What was it about public defense that attracted you to it?

Anthony: I think I have always had a problem with bullies. Other people have told me that throughout life. And when you look at how the system operates and the incredible power of the government against people with little to no resources it becomes pretty clear that it's a system in which people are essentially bullied. And so, appearing in court with your client, on behalf of your client, helping to elevate their story, helping to slow down a system that is designed to move quickly, and to make sure as much as possible that you ensure their humanity is recognized.

It's incredible work. It's frustrating. It's angering. But it's rewarding ultimately because you know you're, in many cases, making a big difference in an individual's life by ensuring that those things happen.

Don: What kinds of cases did you handle as a public defender, Anthony?

Anthony: At that time at CPCS, we didn't have what we now have, which is a number of offices with attorneys who primarily deal in District Court cases, lower-level cases.

I say lower level, but they're cases which mean quite a bit to the individual who was charged with that particular crime. In many instances, what happens in those cases can have a big effect on an individual's life. So, I say lower level in meaning the potential penalty, but they’re not less important in terms of the potential negative outcome on someone's life.

So, at that time we only had Superior Court offices, which meant that you could do work and take cases in both the District Court and the Superior Court. So I essentially in my career practicing handled every single type of case except for a homicide. So attempted murder on down to trespassing and shoplifting.

Don: And just so people understand this, in Massachusetts we have a state court system that has essentially, it's more complicated than this, but essentially two tiers of trial court. We have the lowest level is the District Court. And that's where, am I right that those are misdemeanor cases that get tried in the District Court?

Anthony: Yes.

Don: And then in the level above that is the Superior Court, and that's where felonies are tried. Right?

Anthony: Exactly.

Don: Okay. And then of course there are two appellate levels above both of those trial court levels.

You handled everything from attempted murder all the way down to very minor infractions. That's quite a large range of cases. And I always also have had the impression, I've never done public defense work, I've had the impression that the system is just overloaded, that you would have potentially hundreds of cases at a time. Am I exaggerating that?

Anthony: I think it's important for people to realize, and this is something I teach, I've been teaching at Suffolk University in the criminal justice program. I teach master level classes and undergrad classes. And inevitably, in most of my classes, indigent defense comes up. And what I always tell them, and I'll tell you, is the way that the media portrays public defenders, it's insulting, implying that they're overworked, that they don't care about their clients.

Without a doubt in so many states across the country, it is the case that they are incredibly underfunded, they have way too many cases, and they simply do not have the time to do the things they want to do for their clients and that their clients deserve. But they are incredibly dedicated.

That is not the case in Massachusetts. We always need more funding, of course. Every state agency will tell you that. But the brilliance of the Massachusetts system is that when CPCS was created as a state agency back in 1984, it was put into the statute that the committee was the entity that decided what caseloads would be. And so, caseloads in Massachusetts are reasonable. And so, putting aside when different crises happen, generally speaking our attorneys, both staff and private, have the time to put into a case and to do the things that are required in a particular case.

Don: Now, how do you do that without some people being left without counsel? How do you manage a system where there are limited resources budgetarily necessarily? But you're trying to manage the workload and the caseload in a way so that people are really getting quality representation and not getting short-changed.

Anthony: Right. That's a great question.

Well, the other brilliance of the Massachusetts system, and it is very unique compared to most places around the country, is CPCS oversees not just a staff component, but also a private bar component. And what that means is, we have approximately 450 attorneys who handle cases in all practice areas. We oversee them. They're in offices. We have close supervision. And so, there are always people watching to make sure that they have the right mix of cases in terms of seriousness and in the amount of work that is needed, and to ensure that they don't have too many cases.

We have caseload limits. And so, when an individual attorney approaches their caseload limit, there is going to be someone there who is having a conversation with them to figure out where they're at and do they have too many cases and do they need to drop some cases, but certainly a decision would be made that they shouldn't get any more cases until some of their cases are dealt with.

On the private side, private attorneys handle approximately 80% of the overall caseload across the state. We have an in-house staff that oversees the private bar. We provide training, we provide support, we provide supervision, and we provide oversight. And so, in the various counties, there are private attorneys who we contract with to work with us to provide those same services. And so, obviously it's a lot more challenging with the numbers on the private side than it is on the staff side, but you have the same type of oversight to ensure that an individual has the capacity to handle the cases that they are taking on.

Don: And we're not just talking about a system that wants to do a good thing for people because it's the right thing to do. We're talking about a constitutional right to representation ever since Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963, right?

Anthony: That's correct.

Don: I know you wrote about that recently. You wrote a little bit about Gideon v. Wainwright. We're going to get to that a little later, but go ahead.

Anthony: I was just going to say, but I will say in Massachusetts, there are some areas where there is a statutory right to counsel. And I think that is another thing that Massachusetts can be proud of. Even in instances where the legislature is passing legislation that CPCS thinks is draconian or unnecessary or harmful to our clients, it doesn't really add to public safety, they will still make sure that there is a right to counsel. And so, the right to counsel in Massachusetts is much broader than it is in most other states.

So, there is a lot to be proud of with the system we have in Massachusetts. And I am always quick to tell legislators that when we are advocating for additional funding, that you have something to be proud of here. Provide us the appropriate level of funding so we can continue to have an agency that is providing excellent service.

Don: And for the clients that CPCS represents, it makes the difference, or it can mean the difference between liberty and incarceration. You know, these are not inconsequential rights we're talking about. These are rights that go to the fundamental right of a person to mount a defense when there might be, the accusations or the charges against the individual might be wrong. The person might be innocent of the crime with which they're charged, and the outcome, it could really mean the difference between keeping somebody on a good path for their life or, you know, having their life really take a right turn that puts them off track forever. So, these are really important things we're talking about. This is not just some academic exercise of defending constitutional rights. It's really helping people stay out of jail if they should be out of jail. And even if they end up losing their case, at least knowing that they had good representation in court.

Anthony: Right. That's right, Don. And I think it's important to also be aware that what we do is so much more than how it is portrayed in movies and in the media.

And what I mean by that is, we provide services in a number of areas, and not just criminal, but civil. And examples of some other areas I'm talking about with respect to civil are care and protection cases, where the government is alleging abuse on a home and they will remove a child or children. And so, then you have a situation where representation is being provided to not just the children, but the parents or the caretakers. And in some instances, it could be one parent is saying it was the other parent who was doing something wrong.

And we also provide services in certain mental health cases, such as when the state wants to administer anti-psychotic medication, you're entitled to an attorney. When the state wants to civilly commit you because they think you're a danger to yourself or to others, you're entitled to an attorney. So, we provide counsel in areas that aren't criminal. But in addition, we also provide services designed to help a client address what might be an issue that got them involved into the system in the first place.

And so, we do that in a couple of ways that I'll highlight. We have social workers on staff that work with our attorneys in all of these practice areas to try and identify programs, if the client is interested. That could involve trying to find some sort of low threshold housing. It could involve trying to find a detox bed.

And, on the juvenile side, where a child has gotten involved in the delinquency system, we have education lawyers. We have social workers there as well, but we also have education lawyers because oftentimes kids will get in trouble because of something that may be happening at school. And so, we have education lawyers that will work with the lawyer that is representing the child in the delinquency matter to see what is going on in school. Is the school not providing services that they should be? Is the school trying to expel them?

And so, we will represent that child's interests in those proceedings to make sure they are treated fairly, because too often, what happens in school can lead directly to a child getting involved in the delinquency system. So, we provide intervention in some respects. And so, it's so much more than simply representing somebody in a courtroom.

Don: Yeah. And I think that's something that many people don't understand. So thank you.

What have been your biggest challenges at CPCS? And I know there's probably a long list.

Anthony: Let me start with, the biggest challenge is always having enough money to pay our staff, and to pay the private attorneys. I should start there because I see, whether it was as general counsel or now as chief counsel, I see one of my biggest jobs as making sure our staff have the resources they need to appropriately and zealously represent our clients. And that starts with their compensation. For far too long, our staff were woefully underpaid, and what that led to is incredibly high attrition.

This is an incredibly, I talked about how rewarding this job is, but it is an incredibly stressful, challenging job. And so, when you are trying to do that job and you are worried about paying the bills, whether it be, do I have enough money to pay for rent? When do I leave the office so I can go to my second job waitering in a restaurant? How am I going to make the payment on my $150,000 student loan bill? It makes that job even tougher. And so, that is without a doubt one of the biggest challenges that we have had at CPCS. I can remember being a practicing attorney and having those, thinking about how am I going to pay the bills? How much longer can I do this work, which I am so passionate about, but I'm not being paid enough money that I can continue to do it? So that is the biggest challenge.

And then on the private side, we have a system where the attorneys are paid by the hour and the hourly rates in Massachusetts were some of the lowest in the country, and they are not increased in any sort of regular basis. So, the compensation is the biggest challenge, I think. And we have made tremendous progress in that area, with, of course, the legislature's support. We have been incredibly successful at informing them about the problems with the low pay, and what it means to the success of the system.

We have been successful at explaining, on the staff side, how attrition essentially costs the state money because we had people leaving so quickly and the time it takes to recruit and train them and get them to a place where they can handle a full caseload, it was just a revolving door.

And so, same thing on the private side, where the biggest challenge has been to recruit enough attorneys who are willing to do the work at the hourly rates that were being paid. The economic model doesn't necessarily work for someone, again, coming out of law school with huge amounts of debt. And they're looking at the hourly rates that were being paid and saying, I can't make, I can't make that work.

Don: Right. I think it's important for people to understand that the salaries for the staff attorneys are really a pretty small fraction of what many young attorneys coming out of law school make in private practice at private law firms. And, I gather, I don't know the hourly rates that go to the people in private practice, but I have a general sense of them, and they could be making more money representing paying clients.

So, it's hard, I'm sure, to get them to take the cases, unless they're really devoted to the work and willing to reduce their fee for that kind of opportunity or just because they know it's the right thing to do.

Anthony: Right, right. I'm incredibly proud of the progress that we have made. In the last five years we have increased our starting salary on the on the staff side from 48,000 to, as of December, it will be a little bit over 63,000. So clearly, nobody is getting rich doing public defender work, but that is a huge increase, and it really has helped our ability to recruit. We're in the ballpark now. We are still not paid as much as attorneys are paid in the executive branch or the judicial branch. But we're in the ballpark with respect to other states that have good programs, where talented law students might be looking to go. And that has made a huge difference. And I think it's also helped with our retention.

And it also is important that we have an attractive salary because we're trying to always diversify our staff, hire people that better reflect the population that we serve. And so, we've made some progress there, and I'm hoping that the more we are able to get out there and talk about our salary and all of the other benefits of working with us, that we'll make more progress.

On the private side, in the last few years, we have been able to get the hourly rate increased, again with the support of the legislature. It's not where we think it needs to be for us to convince people who take cases to take more of our cases. And it's not where we think it needs to be in order to convince people to join the panel and take cases. And so, that is one of our initiatives over the next couple of years, is to continue to work to raise that hourly rate. So that's a long answer to your first question, some of the biggest challenges, it's compensation.

Don: You know, it's, going back to the staff attorneys, and you mentioned retention and the importance of retention, I know in private practice, I've often heard that clients don't want to pay for first year associates, because they consider that first year to be the year when the firm is training these people, not when they're actually ready to go out and represent clients. So, there is a learning curve in any kind of legal practice, whether it's public defense or something else. So, if they're leaving too quickly, you're not getting the benefit of the investment you've made in these people in their first year of work.

Now I'm sure they're thrown into situations in the public defenders' offices, where they have to learn very quickly. So maybe the learning curve is not as protracted as it is in private practice. But still, you're investing in those people by training them. And, if they were to leave in two years or three years, that's just a very wasteful way to go. So, I'm glad to hear that retention has been improving.

Clearly money is not the reason people take these jobs. So, what is it that attracts young lawyers to work at CPCS?

Anthony: I think it's people, or I should say, I know it's people who are passionate about social justice. They're passionate about trying to attack the system and the way it works, and the way it, in many respects, doesn't increase public safety, but instead harms public safety because of the way it operates.

And of course, all of us care passionately about the racial and ethnic disparities that are throughout the system. And we've worked to fight all of those things in our individual cases, but we also, as an agency, are working to bring about systemic change, whether it be through our policy advocacy, through legislation, or whether it be through systemic litigation, where we'll bring a lawsuit that gets at a bigger issue that affects a number of people.

Don: What, Anthony, have been some of your successes at CPCS? It sounds like getting the legislature to increase funding so you could increase salaries and pay to private attorneys has been one of them.

Anthony: Definitely.

Don: Although I understand you want to go farther and you probably need to go farther, but it sounds like you've been successful so far.

What else? What have been some of your successes?

Anthony: I think that we continue to get stronger with our training. We are known nationally for our training program and we continue to get better. Not only do we have strong programs, and I'm talking about the staff and the private bar, but not only do we have strong programs for new attorneys, but we offer so many different types of trainings with respect to continuing education.

And, so many people pivoted as a result of the pandemic, and maybe our training department was one of the areas in which we pivoted the most successfully, because pretty quickly they were up and running remote trainings. And one huge positive that has come out of that is realizing how much you can do remotely. And the attendance at some of these trainings was incredible, which was great to see because it tells you that there is a real hunger to learn more and to get better at what you're doing. And so that's an incredible success story.

We've had great success with our legislative and policy advocacy. As you can imagine, we're probably playing defense more than, in terms of the number of proposals that we have, that we work on each legislative session, there is probably twice or three times as many pieces of legislation that we think are bad. And so, we do a tremendous amount of work talking to legislators, working with our other organizations that we partner with to try and convince them that something is a bad idea.

Don: Bad in terms of how it might affect indigent defendants?

Anthony: Exactly. And not necessarily just indigent, but anyone involved, caught up in the legal system, again, in all of our different practice areas.

I should say our four main practice areas are adult criminal, juveniles, mental health, and family law. And family law is primarily care and protection and children requiring assistance. And I think the best example of that is if you have a child who refuses to go to school and the parent or parents simply don't know what to do to get the child to do what they think they need to be doing, the court can get brought into the process.

So, we're playing defense on a lot of these proposals, more often than not, and that's the sort of work that we do that doesn't lend itself to a press release or a congratulatory email to staff and our community to say, "This legislation passed, but boy, it would have been a hundred times worse if we hadn't been involved." You know, so a lot of those stories don't get told, but I assure you, we've had a lot of success there.

But then we’ve had a lot of success in passing good legislation. Something that comes to mind, raise the age, which is legislation that deals with how old should a juvenile be to remain in the juvenile system. We have been involved in the fight against mandatory minimums. And we've had some success there. We have been involved in the advocacy around reducing and eliminating fees and fines that essentially criminalize poverty. We've had some success there. We have had success in legislation around wrongful convictions. Not only compensation for those who have been wrongfully convicted, but some of the laws around what kind of evidence can be considered in those types of cases.

So, it's a pretty broad list of successes that we have had. And then we have a lot of success in our litigation. We file a lot of amicus briefs in the Massachusetts appellate courts.

Don: Are these in criminal cases, or are they in other types of cases?

Anthony: They're in all our cases.

Don: Like civil rights cases, for example?

Anthony: More that have to do with, not necessarily civil rights, but it can be civil rights within the context of the work we do for our clients.

And so, we've had tremendous success there, with convincing the court, or along with others, convincing the court to make a certain decision that will have a positive effect on our clients’ lives.

We have an incredibly talented group of people at CPCS. And when I say that, I'm talking about not just our staff, but a lot of the endeavors, whether it's legislation, whether it's litigation, a lot of times it involves assistance or working alongside our private bar partners.

Don: You mentioned diversity and wanting the people at CPCS to better reflect the diversity of the communities that they serve. Last year, the murder of George Floyd in Minnesota fueled a lot of activity in anti-racism, including movements to defund the police, although I think that is probably a misnomer. How has racism, and especially the more recent pushes against racism, affected your work at CPCS? What's going on in terms of dealing with racial inequality in the criminal justice system and in all the other work that you do.

Anthony: I would definitely think back to when I was a public defender in the courtroom. As I said, I still consider myself a public defender even though I'm the head of the agency. But pretty quickly it became apparent that racism permeated the system.

And I can think of one particular case where a young man was stopped by a police officer, I think it was a state police officer. And the reason for the stop was the gentleman had, the young man had one of those Christmas tree fragrant, you know, the fragrant Christmas tree things that hang from the mirror. I don't remember if it was a Christmas tree, but it was something like that hanging from the mirror.

And the police officer was on the stand. It was a motion to suppress, because when I read the police report, I said, this is ridiculous. Why would you pull someone over? Everybody, or almost everybody I know, had something hanging from their mirror. And it turns out that the law allows for the police to do that.

But it was just so clear that there was racial profiling going on.

Don: How was that clear?

Anthony: There was absolutely no reason. There was no reason for the police officer to pull this person over because something was hanging from the mirror. We got into questioning about how often the police officer pulled people over for that. And he really couldn't answer. And it turns out the law allows police to do that, and the law is, the law basically says, just because they don't pull over everybody who was violating a particular law doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them, you know, picking and choosing, I guess.

Don: I assume, was this a white police officer and a black man?

Anthony: Yes. Yes. And there were just so many examples. That's something that, I told you I teach, that's something I always bring up to my class when we start talking about these sorts of issues. But there are so many other examples where, you would talk to your client and realize they were being treated a certain way because of the way they looked. That's my, that was my experience back as an attorney.

Don: And I assume that wasn't just one case. I mean, you probably saw that multiple times.

Anthony: You saw it over and over again, and you would see how the system would, if you had a white client, you were much more likely to get a better result in a courtroom than you did if you had a client who wasn't white.

Don: With the same offense, basically, and the same record.

Anthony: Exactly. Right. Or similar. Yeah, similar.

And then, so fast forward to the murder of George Floyd in Minnesota. CPCS has been consistently advocating for legislation to reform the system, much of it focused on the racial disparities. But it is fair to say that there has been a sense of increased urgency since that time.

The agency I think has, well I know, we really have done a lot more work focusing inward and looking at what we as an agency can do to make our organization a better, more inclusive place to work. I created an equity and diversity director position. And the purpose of that position is to look at internal issues, like recruitment, retention, promotional opportunities, making sure all of our offices are welcoming, safe spaces.

But it's also focused externally, in how the system treats, not just our clients, but our staff. An example of that is, there are numerous times when we will have an attorney or a social worker going to court, and they're black or brown and they get mistaken for a client or anyone other than the professional that they are.

Don: And you don't see that happening with white staff?

Anthony: No, not at all.

And so, John Lozada is the individual who we hired to be our equity and inclusion director, and in some respects, it's an impossible job because there is so much to tackle. But that's one piece where we're working on strategies on, how do we address that? How do we address when someone is, when there's a microaggression in court where someone is treated inappropriately or something is said inappropriately? How do we address that so that it's a learning moment and our staff feels supported?

So, we're doing a lot of work internally, and then we're also continuing to do a lot of work around legislation and policy having to do with racial justice.

Don: Some locations around the country, some cities in particular, I think, have had these movements to defund the police which, I know you and I have talked about this a little bit, and I don't think that defund the police necessarily means what it sounds like it should mean. But what is your view about some of those movements?

Anthony: I think there, when you say defund the police, I think depending upon who you are talking to, people are coming from a wide range of perspectives. I think what's important for people to understand, that at the root of it is this belief, which I share, that there is far too much money spent on law enforcement and the police, and there should be far more money spent on social services and providing people what they need to succeed, whether it be education, whether it be job training, substance use disorder treatment, mental health beds. There is simply not enough money being spent in that area. And inevitably people end up in the criminal legal system because of problems that arise from some of those examples I gave.

Don: So the idea is, if more money were spent up front on some of those more holistic approaches to addressing issues before somebody commits a crime or is charged with committing a crime, that would actually keep people out of the system and both do a real service to them and the community, but also prevent the state from having to spend money to incarcerate people, which is not an inexpensive proposition.

Anthony: No, no. And the other piece of this is that the police are involved in far too many areas that they shouldn't be.

And two examples, people who struggle with substance use disorder, people who struggle with mental illness, it should not be the police who are handling those types of situations.

And I think the third thing that I would want to raise is this whole idea of public safety. People hear the phrase "public safety" and think of law enforcement. "I want to feel like I am not going to be victimized in a crime." But public safety encompasses so much more than that. Public safety, any public safety discussion should talk about all of the things that I just mentioned. Having a home. Having a good education. Having health care.

I mean, those are just some examples of what should be included in a conversation about what makes a community safe. And I think there is progress being made, but we're still not there.

Don: I want to switch gears just a little bit. You wrote a piece that was published in Commonwealth Magazine in March, which I, as I looked at the piece again, I was reminded that was the anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Gideon v. Wainwright that I mentioned earlier. And the article was about the impact the pandemic has had on incarcerated and accused individuals.

We're still in the pandemic. It's not over. It's certainly changed over time, but we're still very much in it. Can you talk a little bit about that situation that you were writing about and also what it's like today, several months later?

Anthony: Sure. Certainly.

Well, if you remember, back in the beginning of the pandemic, the message was that people needed to, in order to stay safe, stay home. Restaurants were closed. Businesses were closed. Work was closed. And at the same time, there were people in these congregate settings, not by choice, locked up in jails and prisons. And our argument was, you need to let some of these people out because otherwise the virus is going to spread uncontrollably, and people are going to die.

And the real focus was, at least initially, on people who were held on bail. There's a large amount of people who are held on bail. And as you know, the only reason someone is held on bail is because they cannot afford to post bail. They have not been convicted of any crime. And so that certainly was a focus of our litigation, was to try and convince the court, let people out who are being held on bail so that they're not in a place where they are highly likely to get sick. And there were numerous studies and reports that said being locked up in a jail or prison was very dangerous.

We also worked to try and convince the court to let out people who were close to wrapping up their sentence. In other words, let them out, put them on parole, and let them complete their sentence at home where they are much more likely to not catch the virus.

I'm proud of the work that we did. We definitely had success. I think in this business, it is very easy to be frustrated and angry at what you were not successful at, or that you weren't as successful as you would have liked. Because clearly, we did not get out enough, as many people as we would have liked.

Don: But you got out, what, 5,000 people, right?

Anthony: But we did get some people out. Yes. And so, for those people, it made a difference. And so, I'm proud of the work that our team did. And we worked cooperatively with the ACLU and Prisoners’ Legal Services and others on that endeavor. So, I'm proud of what we were able to accomplish, but certainly they did not release as many people as we think they should have.

Don: Did you ever hear the story of the two guys walking along a beach and there were thousands of starfish washed up on the shore? Did you ever hear that story?

Anthony: No.

Don: So, two guys are walking on the beach. There are all these starfish on the sand, stranded, you know, they needed to be back in the water. And one guy bent over, picked up a starfish, and threw it in the water. And the other guy looked at him and said, "You just threw one starfish in the water. There's thousands of starfish here. How is that going to make a difference?" And the first guy said back to him, "It made a difference to that starfish." That sounds a little bit like what you're talking about.

Anthony: Exactly. Exactly. And that's the work we do. We have people who go in and fight for individuals. And then we have people who fight systemically for a large number of individuals. And we attack it in both ways.

Don: And every case matters, and every client matters.

Anthony: Right. And that hearkens back to when I was talking about District Court, and I referred to them as minor cases. To the individual who is before the judge in a district court with a so-called minor case, that could be the most important moment in their life. And it could have an incredibly negative effect on the future of their life. So, although a minor charge, to them, it could be an incredibly major event in their life. And oftentimes it is.

Don: Now, you're also very busy right now with something that in Boston we've come to hear about as “Mass and Cass.” And I'm sure if we have listeners outside of Boston, they won't know what we're talking about. Can you describe that situation and what is CPCS doing right now about it?

Anthony: Well, what is happening in this area of Mass and Cass is that, over a period of months, people who otherwise do not have a place to live, people who have substance use disorder, people who have mental health issues, have congregated there and essentially set up a tent community.

Don: These are two street names, right? Massachusetts Avenue and . . .

Anthony: Yes. Yes. Massachusetts Ave and Melnea Cass Boulevard.

Don: Okay.

Anthony: And so, it has gotten larger and larger, and it got to a point where leaders, state leaders and city leaders, felt that they needed to do something about it. And so, they're taking a multi-pronged approach.

One piece of it is to create this, what they're calling a "community resource court." And I may have gotten that wrong. But essentially, this special court session, which is set up in the jail that is right near that area, to hear cases of people who are in that area who are court-involved. People who have warrants. That's a small piece of the overall approach.

Now they're being criticized for approaching this problem in the way they are, as opposed to treating it as a public health crisis, as opposed to providing people support where they are in terms of where they're living while appropriate services come online and they're offered to, the services that people want are made available. But what's happening is, they're working to clear the area, and it's seems pretty clear that they do not have the resources to support those people. And so, there's a lot of appropriate criticism about that piece.

We are much more specifically involved in the court piece, and we've been very critical of that process because there is a lot of money and resources being spent on this special session. First, we have argued that there is no need for this session. You already have a court system. If people are picked up on these warrants, they should be brought to those courts. There is something very distasteful about having a court in a jail setting.

Don: Who are the judges in these cases?

Anthony: There is one judge who is staffing these court sessions. Primarily, it's all remote. And so, you have court officers there, you have some court officials who are there, whose job it is to work to connect people to services. You have our staff, and you have the district attorney on site, and then you have the house of correction staff. Everyone else is remote.

And so, we have been arguing against the increased use of video appearances. It's one thing when it was needed during the pandemic, but there's been a real push, generally speaking, to do more and more by video, which we have big problems with. I mean, study after study shows that it's a lot easier to have a dehumanizing system when everything is remote. And so that's another problem we have with this, is that almost everyone is remote in these court sessions.

The session is designed to provide stabilization to people who are brought in. In other words, people who are medically compromised in some way, assess what their situation is, what their needs are, and stabilize them so that the court can conduct its business, and then the individual will be provided some type of service or treatment. The problem is there's no reason, at least through two days of this jail court, that what has happened could not have happened in a regular court.

The second, there's a lot of issues, but I think the second biggest issue is the services that are required in it. And there are a whole range of services, depending upon the particular individual. These are incredibly complex issues. It's not simply let's find a bed for somebody to spend the night. It’s what kind of bed does an individual need? Are they using substances that if they all of a sudden are not allowed to continue to use substances, there's a real danger that that is going to be some type of emergency, including the possibility of death? Does the person have a mental illness? Well, that's a different kind of treatment, a different kind of service. There simply aren't enough of a range of services to offer the people who they are bringing before this court, or any people with these complex set of issues that are appearing before any court in the Commonwealth.

Don: What is your pitch to a young lawyer in law school or coming out of law school, when you're trying to recruit them to CPCS. What's your elevator speech to them?

Anthony: Well, we have people who actually do that recruitment work, but I am often asked, people will come my way and ask me why I do what I do, or if I'm trying to convince somebody who was in law school that they really should consider coming to work at CPCS. We are on the front lines of the social justice fight. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the what's going on now in terms of the conversations in the activity around racial and ethnic disparities, racial and ethnic injustice, the racism that is endemic to the system, public defenders are on the front line. We really are civil rights activists. And if you care at all about that, those issues, this is the place to be.

And to be able to stand next to somebody, alongside them, giving them a voice, making sure the system slows down and recognizes their humanity, and make an argument that whatever else you say to me, it really comes down to, this person, like everyone, is better than their worst act. It's incredibly rewarding.

Don: I can sense that. And I can tell how much you feel you've been rewarded by doing this work and leading all of the work.

Anthony: Yes. And I know you're the one who's supposed to be asking these questions, but if I could just add, I was asked recently how I stay engaged, how I don't get discouraged, which I thought was a great question. And it was incredibly timely, because my response to that question was, there is, without a doubt, there are days where you are incredibly frustrated at the lack of progress or the slow pace of progress. And everyone who does this work has those moments. And inevitably there is something that happens that gets you worked up again. And, to put it plainly, what I like to say is that, it sort of re-pisses me off, and it just gets you going again.

But why that question was timely is because a number of CPCS staff and private bar, along with colleagues and friends, had just come back, we just did a civil rights pilgrimage down to Alabama. We went to Montgomery, we went to Birmingham, and we went to Selma. And it was an incredibly powerful experience, even more so because I was experiencing it with my colleagues. But it was angering for a whole host of reasons, including the fact that there is so much that we have not been told in our history classes. But it was inspiring, because when you see how people during that era did not give up, despite the terror that was being rained down upon them, it certainly makes you look at, you know, it's certainly something you think about when you're feeling discouraged and you realize, those people didn't give up. I'm not going to give up.

Don: That's great. Sort of my parting question is, if any listeners want to learn more about CPCS or want to find ways to support the work you do, what would you advise them?

Anthony: Certainly, going to our website, which is www.publiccouncil.net. That's the best place to start to learn a bit more about what we do.

There are a number of ways for people to get involved. And I think one of the best is, there are a whole host of organizations that let one volunteer, and a lot of the work they do is educating other members of the public about these issues and educating our policymakers so that when legislative proposals come up, those legislators are informed and hopefully do the right thing.

Don: Great. Anthony, thanks. This was inspiring to me. You make me want to go out there now. I think I may be a little beyond the right age to do that, but this was really very good, and I hope it will and think it will inspire our listeners as much as it inspired me. So, thank you.

Anthony: You're welcome. And no, Don, you're never too old to join this fight.

Don: Okay. Well, we should have that conversation too, when things settle down for you at Mass and Cass.

So, thank you very much, Anthony. It's great to see you. I appreciate it, and we'll talk again soon.

Anthony: Don. Thank you. I really appreciate you giving me the opportunity to talk about CPCS and the important work we do and the important issues that we're engaged with.

Don: Take care.

Anthony: Bye-bye.