Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211D, § 5 (2026)

Appointment or assignment of counsel

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 5. Said committee shall establish, supervise and maintain a system for the appointment or assignment of counsel at any stage of a proceeding, either criminal or noncriminal in nature, provided, however, that the laws of the commonwealth or the rules of the supreme judicial court require that a person in such proceeding be represented by counsel; and, provided further, that such person is unable to obtain counsel by reason of his indigency. The committee may also establish a system for the provision of counsel in any pre-arraignment procedure. A justice or associate justice shall assign a case to the committee, as hereafter provided, after receiving from the probation officer a written report containing the probation officer's opinion as to the defendant's ability to pay for counsel, based on the standards and procedures provided for in section two.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2004–2021 · leading case: Diatchenko v. Dist. Attorney for the Suffolk Dist. Commonwealth v. Roberio, 27 N.E.3d 349 (Mass. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Diatchenko v. Dist. Attorney for the Suffolk Dist. Commonwealth v. Roberio, 27 N.E.3d 349 (Mass. 2015). · cites it 3× “Turning to the question of appointment of counsel for indigent juvenile homicide offenders like Diatchenko and Roberio, G. L. c. 211D, § 5, authorizes the Committee for Public Counsel Services (committee) to maintain a system for appointment of counsel at any stage of a criminal…”

Bridgeman v. Dist. Attorney for the Suffolk Dist., 67 N.E.3d 673 (Mass. 2017). “211D, § 5 (CPCS "shall establish, supervise and maintain a system for the appointment or assignment of counsel" at any stage of criminal proceeding where there is right to counsel and defendant is indigent). If CPCS, despite its best efforts, were unable to assign counsel to a…”

Deputy Chief Couns. for the Pub. Def. Div. of the Comm. for Pub. Couns. Servs. v. Acting First Just. of the Lowell Div. of the Dist. Court Dep't, 74 N.E.3d 1250 (Mass. 2017). · cites it 3× “The plain language of G. L. c. 211D, § 5, viewed in the context of the enhre statutory scheme, supports our conclusion that CPCS has sole authority to assign counsel to indigent criminal defendants.”

Lavallee v. Justices in the Hampden Superior Court, 442 Mass. 228 (Mass. 2004). “Leahy, to represent the Lavallee petitioners, *233 pursuant to G. L. c. 211D, § 5, and S.J.C. Rule 3:10, as amended, 416 Mass.”

Adoption of Meaghan, 961 N.E.2d 110 (Mass. 2012). “See G. L. c. 211D, § 5 (CPCS authorized to provide counsel for indigent person where “the laws of the commonwealth or the rules of the supreme judicial court require that a person in such proceeding be represented by counsel”).”

Ardon v. Comm. for Pub. Couns. Servs., 979 N.E.2d 1093 (Mass. 2012). “See G. L. c. 211D, § 5 (CPCS obligation to assign or appoint counsel limited to proceedings where the “laws of the commonwealth or the rules of the supreme judicial court require that [the] person in such proceeding be represented by counsel”).”

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 954 N.E.2d 56 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011). “See G. L. c. 211D, § 5; S.J.C. Rule 3:10(3), as amended, 416 Mass.”

Commonwealth v. Haltiwanger (Mass. App. Ct. 2021). “In pertinent part, it provides: "CERTIFICATE AND FINDINGS OF JUDGE "In accordance with Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3:10, as amended, and G. L. c. 211D, § 5, I hereby certify that I have informed the party or parent or guardian named above of the right to counsel in this case.”

Skandha v. Comm. for Pub. Couns., 94 N.E.3d 436 (Mass. App. Ct. 2017). “See also G.L.c. 211D, § 5. Finally, we discern no error in the dismissal of the claims against Cutler with respect to Skandha's case files.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.