1.  The Assigned Counsel policy you link to does not say that an office may not be in a home.  It merely says that it must be “easily accessible to the courts in which s/he provides assigned representation.”  I personaly know Massachusetts assigned counsel who’s offices are at their homes.   Again, the facts, as they relate to each lawyer are important.
2.  I’m a bit surprised that you have not yet boned up on the antitrust laws as they apply to professionals practicing in separate firms coordinating their refusals to deal with a buyer of services.   the issue has been raised for over two years.  If you haven’t bothered reading through this posting, you might give it a try, and follow some of the links, too.   
3.  The bar advocates have been rather shy about actually showing the sources for their overhead claims.  I’ve asked for specific sources, but have not gotten replies. (They’ve also failed to show whether they are counting depreciation and similar expenses that are not out-of-pocket.) I believe that I did once see a footnote in a bar advocate submission referring to a national study. The numbers used jibe with national figures for small to medium firms (not the solo and duo practices that characterize so many bar advocates firms).   As far as saying that Massachusetts has higher costs of living, the specifics again matter.  What is the cost of living in the rural counties that have been the focus of so many of the concerted refusals to take new cases? 
Finally, let’s not lose sight of my main point: acting in concert to cause a court crisis in order to force higher fees — rejecting an 81% increase achieved over the past two years — is inappropriate and unethical.

1.  The Assigned Counsel policy you link to does not say that an office may not be in a home.  It merely says that it must be “easily accessible to the courts in which s/he provides assigned representation.”  I personaly know Massachusetts assigned counsel who’s offices are at their homes.   Again, the facts, as they relate to each lawyer are important.
2.  I’m a bit surprised that you have not yet boned up on the antitrust laws as they apply to professionals practicing in separate firms coordinating their refusals to deal with a buyer of services.   the issue has been raised for over two years.  If you haven’t bothered reading through this posting, you might give it a try, and follow some of the links, too.   
3.  The bar advocates have been rather shy about actually showing the sources for their overhead claims.  I’ve asked for specific sources, but have not gotten replies. (They’ve also failed to show whether they are counting depreciation and similar expenses that are not out-of-pocket.) I believe that I did once see a footnote in a bar advocate submission referring to a national study. The numbers used jibe with national figures for small to medium firms (not the solo and duo practices that characterize so many bar advocates firms).   As far as saying that Massachusetts has higher costs of living, the specifics again matter.  What is the cost of living in the rural counties that have been the focus of so many of the concerted refusals to take new cases? 
Finally, let’s not lose sight of my main point: acting in concert to cause a court crisis in order to force higher fees — rejecting an 81% increase achieved over the past two years — is inappropriate and unethical.

1. New York and Mass are two different animals. We are required to have an office. SEE: http://www.mass.gov/cpcs/manuals/pcmanual/MANUALChap2.pdf nobody here is practicing law out of a car or home office.

2. It is illegal to refuse to work for free or when you are losing money on the deal? That’s a new one for me.

3. Can you show me which article indicates that the overhead figures are from national surveys because I don’t see it. Massachusetts has a higher cost of living than average so any national average figures would underestimate the overhead costs here.

1. New York and Mass are two different animals. We are required to have an office. SEE: http://www.mass.gov/cpcs/manuals/pcmanual/MANUALChap2.pdf nobody here is practicing law out of a car or home office.

2. It is illegal to refuse to work for free or when you are losing money on the deal? That’s a new one for me.

3. Can you show me which article indicates that the overhead figures are from national surveys because I don’t see it. Massachusetts has a higher cost of living than average so any national average figures would underestimate the overhead costs here.

Thanks for you input, Al.  If you’ve read through my writings on this topic, you’ll see that I am very aware of the information posted at the Bristol County Bar Advocate website, and have often commented on it.   Many of the arguments and purported facts put out by BCPCS and MACAA are misleading and/or specious.  For example, the numbers thrown around about “overhead expenses” are not based on any study of actual bar advocates, but instead come from national figures relating to small and medium-size firms.
When I decided to concentrate my practice on assigned counsel cases representing children in New York State (at $25 per hour out of court, $40 in court), as I did in the mid-’90s, I knew it would mean financial restrictions and sacrifices.  Therefore, I had no secretary, I used a home office, I used the County Law Library system, etc.    Had I wanted to live above the income level that comes from reliance upon assigned counsel cases, I would have sought (and actually could have attracted) private clients. 
I don’t know what your definition of greed might be.  Rejecting an 81% raise over the 2003 hourly rate, and being willing to create a court crisis through illegal boycott tactics, in order to get more pay (and keep out “competition” from public defenders) comes within my notion of greedy. 

Thanks for you input, Al.  If you’ve read through my writings on this topic, you’ll see that I am very aware of the information posted at the Bristol County Bar Advocate website, and have often commented on it.   Many of the arguments and purported facts put out by BCPCS and MACAA are misleading and/or specious.  For example, the numbers thrown around about “overhead expenses” are not based on any study of actual bar advocates, but instead come from national figures relating to small and medium-size firms.
When I decided to concentrate my practice on assigned counsel cases representing children in New York State (at $25 per hour out of court, $40 in court), as I did in the mid-’90s, I knew it would mean financial restrictions and sacrifices.  Therefore, I had no secretary, I used a home office, I used the County Law Library system, etc.    Had I wanted to live above the income level that comes from reliance upon assigned counsel cases, I would have sought (and actually could have attracted) private clients. 
I don’t know what your definition of greed might be.  Rejecting an 81% raise over the 2003 hourly rate, and being willing to create a court crisis through illegal boycott tactics, in order to get more pay (and keep out “competition” from public defenders) comes within my notion of greedy. 

You are misinformed. Please read the links on this page to get an idea of the crisis in Massachusetts:

http://www.bristolcpcs.org/WhatsNew.html

It has absolutely nothing to do with greed. Lawyers are going broke in this state.

You are misinformed. Please read the links on this page to get an idea of the crisis in Massachusetts:

http://www.bristolcpcs.org/WhatsNew.html

It has absolutely nothing to do with greed. Lawyers are going broke in this state.