Probate and Family Court announces special procedures
for cases involving children in Hampshire Division
The Probate and Family Court Department announces the
implementation of Standing Order 1-10 regarding a pilot program in
the Hampshire Division involving children. The order will require
attorneys, parents and caregivers in divorce, separate support,
paternity, support/custody/visitation, modification, contempt,
guardianship and termination of parental rights cases in the
Hampshire Division to participate in a child-focused resolution
process.
Boston Municipal Court to offer limited assistance
representation
Chief Justice for Administration & Management Robert A.
Mulligan has approved a Standing Order requested by the Boston
Municipal Court to introduce limited assistance representation
(LAR) for civil matters. Notice of the standing order will become
effective May 3.
"Expansion of limited assistance representation into a new court
department represents significant progress and it reflects the
value of launching a focused Trial Court initiative on access to
justice," said Mulligan. "I commend the Boston Municipal Court and
I expect that the momentum will continue to grow through ongoing
collaboration and coordination between the Access to Justice
Commission and the Trial Court Access to Justice Initiative."
Boston Municipal Court Chief Justice Charles Johnson said, "The
Boston Municipal Court Department is pleased to positively respond
to the increasing number of self-represented litigants appearing in
our various courts. LAR enhances access to justice by providing
litigants with the opportunity for selected representation without
the burden of excessive expense and by releasing lawyers from
obligatory lawyer-client relationships when clients no longer
desire or can afford their services."
In May 2009, based on the success of the LAR pilot project in
the Probate and Family Court Department, the Supreme Judicial Court
issued an order approving the use of LAR in other court
departments. The Probate and Family Court Department subsequently
introduced LAR across the state.
Limited assistance representation is one of the four priority
projects identified in the Interim Report on Access to Justice
Initiatives in the Trial Court issued in January. LAR permits an
attorney, either for payment or pro bono, to assist a litigant on a
limited basis without undertaking full representation of the client
on all issues and events related to the client's case. Protocols
and procedures for the use of LAR are established by each court
department.
Probate and Family Court adopts Scheduling Practices and
Procedures
The Probate and Family Court Scheduling Practices and
Procedures, which were approved by Chief Justice Paula M. Carey,
became effective in all divisions of the Probate and Family Court
on April 15, the court's Administrative Office announced.
These practices and procedures were developed by Carey based on
a report from the Probate and Family Court Scheduling Task Force.
In response to concerns expressed by the legal community about
certain aspects of case scheduling and, more particularly, about
the lack of uniformity in the manner in which cases, motions, etc.,
are scheduled in the various divisions within the Probate and
Family Court Department, Carey created a task force to review such
matters and to provide her with recommendations for suggested
changes.
The task force convened a total of five regional meetings across
the state to meet with members of the bar and others to listen to
their concerns and hear their ideas as to how scheduling matters in
the Probate and Family Court might be improved. The practices and
procedures, which shall supersede any local rules, practices or
promulgated procedures where there is a conflict, include the
following:
- Re-statement of the Standing Order 1-06 requirement to review
domestic relations and equity cases for service of process;
- Re-statement of the Standing Order 1-06 requirement of
mandatory next event scheduling;
- Choosing of motion dates by the parties, not the court, unless
general session limits are requested by the first justice and
approved by the chief justice. An individual session limitation may
also be approved by the first justice;
- Scheduling pre-trial conferences at staggered times;
- Procedure for continuances, including emphasis on a limit of
one administrative allowance of a joint request to continue, unless
good cause is shown;
- Scheduling hearings on agreements or uncontested matters where
final judgment is sought within 30 days of filing; and
- Encouragement of the use of teleconferences.
Modifications to Probate and Family Court Scheduling Practices and
Procedures were made for the Barnstable, Bristol and Middlesex
divisions of the Probate and Family Court effective April 15.
At the request of certain first justices, Carey has determined
that the following divisions of the Probate and Family Court will
be permitted to modify their motion practice:
- Bristol Division (New Bedford) - Scheduled motions in New
Bedford shall be limited to 55 per motion session. Attorneys and
parties shall be permitted to mail in or hand deliver their motion
and chose their own dates, on a motion day of the assigned case
judge, rather than the court choosing a motion date. If the date
fills, the parties or counsel will be notified and they will be
required to choose another date for their hearing. This exemption
was granted to ensure that no fire code is violated in New
Bedford.
- Barnstable Division - Motions may be scheduled on Monday,
Thursday and Friday mornings beginning May 3. Motions may be
scheduled on Wednesdays only if the parties have a scheduled
pre-trial conference that day. There will be no limit to the number
of motions scheduled on a particular day, except in the event of
vacation or other anomaly circumstance. Attorneys and parties may
send their motions in to the court, with proper notice, without
having to call the court in advance.
- Middlesex Division - Scheduled motions shall be limited to 55
per motion session. Attorneys and parties shall be permitted to
mail in or hand deliver their motion and chose their own dates, on
a motion day of the assigned case judge, rather than the court
choosing a motion date. If the date fills, the parties or counsel
will be notified and they will be required to choose another date
for their hearing. This exemption was granted in light of the
significant shortage of probation officers in Middlesex County, the
fact that four days a week two motion sessions are running, and at
times three court locations operate on one day.
Mass. Trial Court issues policy on juror use of personal
communication devices
Chief Justice for Administration & Management Robert A.
Mulligan issued a policy on March 25 regarding the use of cell
phones and other personal communication devices by jurors in
courthouses and courtrooms. The new policy is intended to
complement the existing security policy on clothing, cameras and
cell phones introduced Jan. 9, 2006.
Judges shall instruct jurors selected to serve on a jury that,
until their jury service is concluded, that they shall not:
- discuss the case with others, including other jurors, except as
otherwise authorized by the court;
- read or listen to any news reports about the case;
- use a computer, cellular phone or other electronic device with
communication capabilities, including access to the Internet, while
in attendance at trial or during jury deliberations. These devices
may be used during lunch breaks, but may not be used to obtain or
disclose information about, or relevant to, the case;
- use a computer, cellular phone or other electronic device with
communication capabilities, including access to the Internet, or
any other methods to obtain or disclose information about, or
relevant to, the case when they are not in court.
Departmental chief justices may impose a more restrictive
policy, including the collection of cell phones and other
communication devices while the jury is deliberating. However, for
a variety of reasons, cell phones and other communication devices
shall not be collected and stored by associate court officers
working at the front door screening station.
The judge who greets the jurors in the pool each morning
pursuant to G.L. c. 234A, sec. 65, shall inform them about this
policy.
Departmental chief justices shall work to develop and promulgate
whatever procedures are necessary to ensure compliance in their
department.