Jacob Maddox Files Amicus Brief on Behalf of MACDL in Challenge to Appointed-Counsel Restrictions
Todd & Weld attorney Jacob Maddox filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (MACDL) in support of plaintiffs in Massachusetts Association of Private Appointed Counsel, Inc. (MAPAC), et al. v. Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, No. 2684-CV-01790, pending in Massachusetts Superior Court.
Maddox, along with Todd & Weld attorneys Howard M. Cooper and Max D. Stern and co-counsel David Rangaviz of Masferrer & Riley PC, submitted the brief on August 27, 2026.
The case challenges the constitutionality of G.L. c. 211D, § 11(a)(2), which was enacted following the 2025 work stoppage by private attorneys who accept court-appointed criminal-defense cases. The provision provides that an agreement among private bar advocates to refuse new appointments unless compensation rates are increased constitutes evidence of a violation of Massachusetts’ antitrust statute.
MACDL’s brief presents survey evidence gathered from attorneys who accept or have accepted appointed criminal-defense assignments throughout Massachusetts. The survey received 92 completed responses and examines how attorneys subject to § 11(a)(2) understand the statute and how it has affected their professional conduct.
Among the survey respondents:
- 77% reported that they reduced or declined appointments during the 2025 work stoppage.
- 47% reported that the statute has made them less willing to speak publicly about compensation or working conditions for appointed counsel.
- 48% reported that the statute has made them less willing to participate in collective advocacy, including letters, petitions, or bar-association positions.
- 97% reported that they could not clearly determine what conduct they would need to engage in—or avoid—to be confident they were not violating the statute.
- 55% reported that they are less willing to accept new appointed cases.
- 51% reported awareness of other attorneys who have left appointment panels or declined to join them since or because of § 11(a)(2).
The brief does not offer the survey as independent proof of the legal elements of plaintiffs’ claims. Rather, MACDL asks the Court to consider the survey as empirical evidence of the statute’s practical effects on the attorneys it regulates.
In particular, the brief argues that the survey evidence is relevant to plaintiffs’ allegations that § 11(a)(2) chills protected speech and association, creates uncertainty about what conduct the statute prohibits, and contributes to a reduction in participation in the appointed-counsel system. MACDL also argues that these effects are relevant to whether the statute advances or undermines the Commonwealth’s stated interest in preserving access to counsel for indigent defendants.
The filing continues MACDL’s participation in litigation concerning the administration of criminal justice in Massachusetts. The organization previously appeared as amicus curiae in CPCS v. Middlesex & Suffolk County District Courts, 497 Mass. 287 (2026), which arose from the same 2025 shortage of appointed counsel.
Todd & Weld’s attorneys have extensive experience representing clients in complex litigation involving constitutional, statutory, and public-interest issues.