Over 120 Boston cases, from shoplifting to assaults, were dismissed in a public defender pay dispute
A Boston courtroom sat mostly empty on Tuesday as more than 120 criminal cases were abruptly dismissed, the latest dramatic fallout from a bitter dispute over public defender pay.
The sweeping decision came after Boston Municipal Court Chief Justice Tracy-Lee Lyons invoked the Lavallee protocol — a rarely used legal safeguard that forces courts to release defendants without lawyers. The rule requires charges to be dropped if a person has not been assigned an attorney for 45 days, and release from custody if they have gone seven days without one.
While suspects held in custody have already been freed in recent weeks, Tuesday marked the first time the protocol was used to wipe cases entirely from the court’s docket.
Most of the dismissed cases involved relatively minor crimes, such as shoplifting, drug possession, and driving offences. Yet buried among them were allegations of a far more violent nature: assaults on police officers and domestic violence incidents that will now go unprosecuted.
Embed from Getty ImagesOne case involved a man accused of punching his pregnant girlfriend in the stomach before slapping her across the face. Another centred on a woman who told police that the father of her child threatened to kill her and tried to strangle her. A third involved a suspect who allegedly struck a police officer and threatened to shoot him.
Each case ended the same way. Judge Lyons, after reviewing evidence that public defenders had made a genuine effort to find lawyers for the accused, concluded the court had no choice but to act.
“This case will be dismissed without prejudice,” she said repeatedly, stressing that all fines and fees would also be waived. The words were echoed over and over as file after file was closed in rapid succession.
None of the defendants were in court to witness their charges vanish.
The dismissals underscore the deepening crisis within Massachusetts’ public defence system. For months, publicly funded defence lawyers have refused to take on new cases, protesting pay levels they argue are unsustainably low given the complexity and workload of criminal defence. The standoff has left scores of defendants without representation and courts paralysed.
For victims, the consequences are devastating. Domestic violence survivors have watched their alleged abusers walk free without trial. Police officers assaulted in the line of duty have seen cases collapse before reaching a jury. Critics say the justice system is failing both victims and communities.
But for defence lawyers, the battle is about fairness and survival. They contend that without competitive pay, the state cannot recruit or retain the attorneys needed to guarantee constitutional rights to legal representation. The Lavallee protocol exists precisely for such situations — to prevent indefinite delays in justice when no counsel is available.
The wave of dismissals has shocked even seasoned legal observers. Rarely has the protocol been used so broadly or on cases involving serious allegations. In effect, the pay dispute has forced the courts to abandon prosecutions, turning financial disagreement into a crisis of public safety.
With tensions escalating, state leaders now face mounting pressure to resolve the impasse before more cases collapse. For now, dozens of defendants walk free, their charges dissolved not by verdict, but by absence of representation.
📌 Metadata (SEO Optimisation)
- Medium Tail Keyword (3 Words): Boston case dismissals
- Meta Title: Boston Judge Dismisses 120 Cases as Public Defender Pay Dispute Explodes
- Slug: boston-judge-dismisses-120-cases
- Meta Description (≤150 Characters): Over 120 Boston criminal cases, including assaults, dismissed as public defender pay dispute cripples courts.
Law Firm Owner Rebuked After Caseworker’s Botched Immigration Appeal
East London law firm sanctioned after caseworker’s failed immigration judicial review. LAW
📰 Main Text (600 Words – Human Tone, British English)
An East London solicitor has been formally rebuked by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) after a tribunal found that an application for judicial review submitted by a non-solicitor caseworker at his firm was “totally without merit.”
The disciplinary notice, published on Tuesday, revealed that Ignatius Etukudoh, the sole director of Alpha Springs Solicitors, faced regulatory action following the handling of an immigration matter for Client A.
According to the SRA, the firm’s unqualified caseworker lodged an application to the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal in December 2022, challenging a Home Office decision. However, the Upper Tribunal dismissed the application in March 2023, certifying it as totally without merit and ordering Alpha Springs to pay £1,492 in wasted costs.
A subsequent review of the client’s file by the SRA uncovered a series of procedural failings. The application had not complied with the pre-action protocol for judicial review, was wrongly submitted under the urgent consideration procedure, omitted key documents, and was “poorly drafted.”
In his response to the regulator, Mr Etukudoh admitted failings in oversight and confirmed that “lessons have been learned.” He told the SRA that he had since implemented new processes to ensure all appeal applications at the firm receive proper advice on their merits and realistic prospects of success.
The disciplinary notice emphasised that, in mitigation, the solicitor had fully cooperated with the investigation. The SRA also noted that he had shown “insight and understanding of his regulatory obligations,” expressed “remorse, regret and apologised for the misconduct,” and had until now maintained a clean regulatory record.
While the regulator acknowledged the misconduct as serious, it concluded that the likelihood of repetition was low. As such, the SRA determined that a rebuke, rather than referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, was the appropriate outcome.
In its statement, the regulator said:
“A rebuke reflects the gravity of and seriousness of the conduct without requirement for further sanctions. The SRA does not consider that it is proportionate or in the public interest to pursue allegations to the tribunal.”
In addition to the public rebuke, Mr Etukudoh was ordered to pay £300 in costs to the regulator.
The case highlights the risks of inadequate supervision of non-qualified staff in solicitors’ practices, particularly in sensitive areas such as immigration and asylum law where procedural compliance is critical. Legal commentators note that the wasted costs order, though relatively modest, underscores how swiftly tribunals act when they deem an application baseless or improperly advanced.
Mr Etukudoh’s swift acceptance of responsibility and move to overhaul internal processes appear to have spared him more severe disciplinary consequences. Had the SRA considered the misconduct deliberate, repeated, or likely to recur, the matter could have been escalated to a full tribunal hearing, potentially leading to suspension or striking off.
For now, the rebuke serves as a warning to other firms to tighten supervision of non-qualified staff. The regulator has repeatedly stressed that solicitors in leadership roles must ensure that all work carried out under their name meets professional standards, regardless of who within the firm drafts or submits the documents.
