Gloucester District Court Probation Department's Indigency Determination Process for State-Sponsored Legal Services

This is a Massachusetts State Auditor review of how Gloucester District Court checked financial eligibility for state-paid legal help.

“The Gloucester District Court (GDC) was one of the 27 courts selected for our review.”

The auditor looked at Gloucester because probation departments are responsible for checking whether people who ask for public counsel meet the legal definition of indigent.

“The objective of our work at each district court was limited to determining the extent to which probation staff in these courts were complying with their mandated responsibility established by Chapter 211D to ensure that a defendant claiming to be indigent meets the definition of indigence.”

If the court does not verify eligibility, public money for lawyers may go to people who do not qualify, while the state cannot prove the spending was proper.

“As a result of these conditions, there is inadequate assurance that the funding provided to the CPCS to retain public counsel for the 631 individuals deemed indigent by the GDC in fiscal year 2010 was appropriately spent.”

For an ordinary resident, this is about whether taxpayer-funded legal services are being managed fairly and whether the court is keeping enough proof to show the money is used correctly.

“During this same period, the GDC provided legal counsel services to 631 of these individuals determined to be indigent by the GDC Probation Department.”

The auditor concluded that Gloucester’s process did not comply with state law because the department did not routinely verify defendants’ financial information and did not keep required records.

“Based on our review, we determined that the GDC Probation Department was not in compliance with Chapter 211D of the General Laws in terms of ensuring that a defendant claiming to be indigent meets the definition of indigence as defined by Rule 3:10, Section 1, of the Supreme Judicial Court.”

The report recommends that Gloucester’s Probation Department immediately follow the law, create written procedures, and improve internal controls and record retention.

“In order to address our concerns relative to this matter, we recommend that the GDC Probation Department take measures to immediately comply with all the requirements of Chapter 211D of the General Laws.”

The finding is significant because the problem affected the court’s ability to support eligibility decisions for hundreds of defendants in fiscal year 2010.

“Accordingly, there was inadequate assurance that the GDC Probation Department performed the required verification of the information provided by clients who applied for and received state-sponsored legal services.”

“Indigent” means a person is financially unable to pay for counsel under court rules; CPCS is the state body that provides public counsel, while probation officers check eligibility.

“Chapter 211D charges the CPCS with the responsibility of providing legal counsel services to indigent persons entitled to representation by law.”