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

This is a Massachusetts State Auditor report reviewing how the Pittsfield District Court Probation Department checked whether people qualified as indigent for state-paid legal counsel.

“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.”

The Auditor was reviewing the public counsel system and selected Pittsfield District Court as one of 27 district courts to see whether probation departments were doing required indigency checks.

“The PDC was one of the 27 district courts selected for our review.”

If the court does not verify eligibility, the state cannot be sure that taxpayer-funded legal services went only to people who truly qualified.

“As a result of these conditions, there is inadequate assurance that all of the state-sponsored legal counsel services that the PDC provided to 1,608 defendants during fiscal year 2010 were appropriate.”

For ordinary residents, the issue is whether public money for appointed lawyers was protected by basic checks and records.

“As a result of these conditions, there is inadequate assurance that the funding provided to the CPCS to retain public counsel for the 1,608 individuals deemed indigent by the PDC in fiscal year 2010 was appropriately spent.”

The court’s probation department was not following key legal and recordkeeping requirements for confirming indigency.

“We also found that the 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 Auditor recommended that the Pittsfield District Court Probation Department immediately follow the law and create written procedures and controls, including for record retention.

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

The finding was significant because Pittsfield District Court provided state-paid legal counsel to 1,608 people in fiscal year 2010, but the audit found weak verification and missing documentation.

“During this same period, the PDC provided legal counsel services to 1,608 of these individuals determined to be indigent by the PDC Probation Department.”

“Indigent” means a person who meets legal standards showing they cannot afford a lawyer, such as receiving certain public benefits, having very low income, being in certain care facilities, or being in custody with no available funds.

“Rule 3:10, Section 1, of the Supreme Judicial Court defines an indigent person as an individual who is:”