Take Action

We are asking the SJC and the Massachusetts legislature to make HOPE possible. See below for some example messages in support of HOPE, and when you're ready, add your voice to the call for action.

SJC

Legislature

Dear Honorable Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court,

My name is Patricia Salazar. I am a Section 8 voucher holder and Massachusetts resident. I live in Boston, and I have experienced difficulties getting my landlord to make needed repairs. My plumbing broke, leaving water leaking everywhere. I couldn’t shower at home for days. I tried getting my landlord to fix it, but he refused to act. I reached out to attorney’s offices to help, but couldn’t find one I could afford or that could take me as a client. This experience exemplifies one of the many challenges that households in Massachusetts encounter when trying to maintain stable and safe housing.

I am writing to express my strong support for the adoption of proposed Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3:17, the lynchpin of the Housing Opportunity Provider Expansion initiative (“HOPE”). This rule is critical to ensuring that tenants can meaningfully understand and defend their rights in a system that is often overwhelming, fast-moving, and difficult to navigate without help.

Rising housing costs have produced widespread housing insecurity across Massachusetts. The demand for legal aid in housing court far exceeds the available supply, with chronically underfunded organizations forced to turn away up to half of eligible clients. These shortages are compounded by procedural barriers that prevent many households from obtaining timely assistance. Strict unauthorized practice of law rules block trained nonlawyers from offering even basic legal help. Rule 5.5 of the Supreme Judicial Court’s Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits the unauthorized practice of law, SJC Rule 4:01 governs disciplinary proceedings for violations, M.G.L. c. 221, § 41 criminalizes such conduct, and M.G.L. c. 221, § 46A provides that only members of the bar shall practice law. Together, these restrictions prevent community-based organizations and trained service providers from assisting tenants in situations where limited support could make the difference between stability and displacement.

Proposed Rule 3:17 offers an important and measured solution. The rule would enable the establishment of a structured pilot program authorizing trained, certified nonlawyers to provide free, limited legal assistance under attorney supervision. These housing justice workers would receive training and supervision and assist with tasks such as completing forms, explaining procedural steps, preparing documents, and offering limited legal guidance specifically related to housing cases. By enabling trained community-based providers to meet tenants’ basic legal needs, Rule 3:17 would ease the strain on legal aid and allow attorneys to focus on complex cases requiring full representation.

States like Arizona and Utah have already shown that such reforms can operate safely and effectively. Arizona’s trained nonlawyer pilot began in the domestic violence context and expanded into housing, public benefits, and other civil areas after demonstrating strong results. The Arizona State Supreme Court revised its unauthorized practice rules to support the program and ensure rigorous training, oversight, and evaluation. Similarly, Utah’s Housing Stability Legal Advocate pilot authorizes community-based organizations to provide limited-scope housing assistance based upon a Utah Supreme Court standing order. These programs show that structured training, clear supervision, and measurable evaluation can expand access to justice without compromising client safety.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Supreme Judicial Court to adopt proposed Rule 3:17. This rule would give tenants meaningful access to legal assistance at critical moments, advance the core values of justice and fairness, and offer a careful path to addressing the Commonwealth’s urgent housing needs.

Signed,

HOPE Advocate

I am writing today to express my support for the Housing Opportunity Provider Expansion initiative (“HOPE”), consisting of the creation of the HOPE Fund and the adoption of Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3:17. These reforms are critical to ensuring that tenants can meaningfully understand and defend their rights in a system that is often overwhelming, fast-moving, and difficult to navigate without help.

Rising housing costs have produced widespread housing insecurity across Massachusetts. The demand for legal aid in housing court far exceeds the available supply, with chronically underfunded organizations forced to turn away up to half of eligible clients. These shortages are compounded by procedural barriers that prevent many households from obtaining timely assistance. Strict unauthorized practice of law rules block trained non-lawyers from offering even basic legal help. Rule 5.5 of the Supreme Judicial Court’s Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits the unauthorized practice of law, SJC Rule 4:01 governs disciplinary proceedings for violations, M.G.L. c. 221, § 41 criminalizes such conduct, and M.G.L. c. 221, § 46A provides that only members of the bar shall practice law. Together, these restrictions prevent community-based organizations and trained service providers from assisting tenants in situations where limited support could make the difference between stability and displacement.

Proposed Rule 3:17 offers an important and measured solution. The rule would enable the establishment of a structured pilot program authorizing trained, certified non-lawyers to provide free, limited legal assistance under attorney supervision. These housing justice workers would receive training and supervision and assist with tasks such as completing forms, explaining procedural steps, preparing documents, and offering limited legal guidance specifically related to housing cases. By enabling trained community-based providers to meet tenants’ basic legal needs, Rule 3:17 would ease the strain on legal aid and allow attorneys to focus on complex cases requiring full representation.

States like Arizona and Utah have already shown that such reforms can operate safely and effectively. Arizona’s trained non-lawyer pilot began in the domestic violence context and expanded into housing, public benefits, and other civil areas after demonstrating strong results. The Arizona State Supreme Court revised its unauthorized practice rules to support the program and ensure rigorous training, oversight, and evaluation. Similarly, Utah’s Housing Stability Legal Advocate pilot authorizes community-based organizations to provide limited-scope housing assistance based upon a Utah Supreme Court standing order. These programs show that structured training, clear supervision, and measurable evaluation can expand access to justice without compromising client safety.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the State Legislature to enact the HOPE Fund and support the implementation of SJC Rule 3:17. This investment would give tenants meaningful access to assistance during moments of urgent housing instability and strengthen the Commonwealth’s commitment to equal justice and dignity for all residents.

Signed,

HOPE Advocate

Add your voice to the call. Fill out the form below, and we will send the above message to the SJC, filling in your information and copying you so you can see the results of your efforts as well as their reply.