Public defenders in Massachusetts are pursuing the right to form a union through Question 2 on the November 3 ballot. The measure seeks to amend state law to explicitly include the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS), their employer, under the public sector labor relations statute, allowing these attorneys to join the ranks of more than 90 percent of unionized state employees.

Public defenders provide legal representation for criminal defendants who cannot afford private counsel, often working under demanding conditions with relatively modest compensation. Entry-level salaries for these positions start at approximately $79,000, which is considerably lower than many private-sector legal roles. Advocates for Question 2 argue that unionization would enable public defenders to better negotiate wages, working conditions, and other employment concerns, improving recruitment and retention in a profession marked by high turnover.

Supporters highlight the mission-driven nature of public defense work. Sam Harold, a Boston-based public defender involved in the campaign, noted that many enter the field out of commitment to justice but eventually leave due to the work’s unsustainable demands. Union representation, proponents contend, could alleviate some of these pressures and help sustain a more experienced and stable workforce, ultimately benefiting the fairness and efficiency of the legal system.

Public defenders’ unionization is not unprecedented. Similar efforts have succeeded in other large jurisdictions, including New York and Los Angeles, where public defenders are already union members. Proponents characterize the current exclusion of Massachusetts public defenders as a legal oversight, as the state’s labor law does not specifically recognize CPCS employees despite including most other state workers.

There is no organized opposition to Question 2, but some critics raise the standard concerns associated with public sector unions. Because public employees negotiate with government entities rather than private companies driven by profit, opponents argue that labor negotiations should respect elected officials’ authority over hiring, firing, and budgeting decisions. However, supporters maintain that excluding public defenders is inconsistent with the state’s existing public sector union policy.

Importantly, Massachusetts law prohibits strikes by public sector unions. Public defenders seeking unionization would adhere to this restriction, which has been credited with preventing disruptions similar to those caused by last year’s partial work stoppage among private attorneys contracted to handle overflow cases. This limitation is viewed as a protective measure for the public by ensuring continuity in the justice system.

While backing the unionization effort, some emphasize that union contracts should not shield incompetent practitioners from accountability, as maintaining high-quality legal representation is essential for defendants’ rights. The balance between defending management’s authority and safeguarding workers’ rights will be central to future negotiations.

Question 2 aims to grant public defenders collective bargaining rights consistent with those of other state employees, a change supporters argue is overdue given the critical role these lawyers play in the justice system.