THE HOUSING JUSTICE GAP
Too many residents in Massachusetts are unable to enforce their housing rights.
Why this problem has not been solved:
Even though the access-to-justice gap in housing is well understood, interviews with state officials, local leaders, and legal service providers show that several structural factors keep the problem in place.
_____________________________ OPPOSITION FROM LANDLORDS AND NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS. Interviews with Cambridge City Councilors, as well as attendance at a City of Cambridge planning board meeting about a new affordable housing development with a public comment period, underscored concerns that stronger tenant protections would alter “neighborhood character” or indicate an anti-landlord bias. POLITICAL RESISTANCE TO PROGRAMS SUPPORTING LOW-INCOME TENANTS. State legislative staff and local officials noted that assistance to poorer tenants is frequently framed as wasteful spending for undeserving constituencies, which limits support for large-scale housing reforms. SHORT-TERM POLITICAL INCENTIVES LIMIT LONG-TERM POLICY SOLUTIONS. Interviews with Massachusetts legislative staff, Access to Justice Commission members, and an Arizona official emphasized that lawmakers tend to prioritize fast-moving political controversies rather than structural issues like housing stability. Since attention is driven by what is politically urgent in the moment, sustained focus on long-term access-to-justice reforms rarely occurs. LIMITED POLITICAL APPETITE FOR SYSTEMIC REFORMS THAT DISRUPT ENTRENCHED INTERESTS OR REQUIRE NEW FUNDING. State legislative staff and legal aid providers emphasized that proposals involving new appropriations, expanded legal services infrastructure, or changes to professional rules face steep resistance as they challenge existing power structures. Without a clear funding pathway or strong coalition to counter status-quo pressures, these structural reforms rarely advance.
_____________________________ STRICT UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW RULES that make it difficult to pilot non-lawyer civil justice worker programs. Interviews with legal aid directors and state officials in Arizona and Utah underscored how Massachusetts’ unauthorized practice of law rules are incredibly restrictive, making comparable pilot programs impossible to launch without major rule changes. STRONG PROFESSIONAL-PROTECTION NORMS in Massachusetts that reinforce a narrow definition of who may provide legal help. Interviewees in the judiciary and legal services community noted that Massachusetts maintains a strong expectation that legal work remain exclusively within the bar, even for tasks that other states have safely delegated to trained non-lawyers. LIMITS ON CITY-LEVEL AUTHORITY, which prevent municipalities from creating new categories of trained legal service providers or experimenting with local solutions. Our interview with Mayor Michelle Wu’s Chief of Policy underscored that cities cannot authorize trained non-lawyers, define new legal-support roles, or adjust licensure rules without state approval.
_____________________________ CHRONIC UNDERFUNDING OF CIVIL LEGAL AID. Interviewees with leading legal aid organizations noted that they have to turn away eligible tenants because funding levels have not kept pace with the demand for legal services. INADEQUATE STATE APPROPRIATIONS for both legal aid and housing-related advocacy. Interviews with Massachusetts legislators pointed to inconsistent year-to-year funding, which undermines the ability of legal aid providers to hire, train, and retain staff or plan for long-term capacity. VOLATILE OR REDUCED FEDERAL FUNDING, which constrains long-term planning and capacity building. Legal aid directors explained that freezes in federal resources, including Legal Services Corporations funding, have limited their ability to engage in housing-stability work. CONCERNS THAT MASSACHUSETTS'S ACCESS TO COUNSEL PILOT PROGRAMS COULD BE VIEWED AS “SOLVING THE PROBLEM,” limiting support for further reforms. State Senate staff explained that because the Legislature recently adopted a limited right to counsel, political leaders may perceive the issue as addressed, making it harder to push forward initiatives like non-lawyer assistance models.