Input Is Key in Success of Fair Trial Date Initiative
To the editor:
Many who were at the Massachusetts Bar Association’s annual meeting are grateful to Superior Court Chief Justice Barbara J. Rouse, and judges Stephen E. Neel and Nonnie S. Burnes, who presented their desired goals of the Firm and Fair Trial Date Initiative, now in progress.
Rouse explained that she wanted to form a true “partnership with the bar” and held sacred the judicial independence of every trial judge in his or her session at all times.
The chief sent a strong message to judges and practitioners alike that there not be any pressure or preference to deny rather than allow motions to continue. These messages were echoed in Judge Neel’s letter, published in Lawyers Weekly on April 3 (“ Judge addresses concern over fair trial date initiative “).
We applaud Rouse, Neel, Burnes and others for placing trust in our judges, and look forward to working with the administration in an attempt to make the system more efficient.
There are inevitable snags at the outset of any new initiative. Attorneys present at the meeting provided some examples. One practitioner was forced to trial in a case that he said could have been settled with a bit more time.
Another said she was denied a continuance in a case about to be called for trial even though she was scheduled to start another trial days before.
One attorney stated that a clerk told him there had been instructions issued to reduce the number of continuances, and all were relieved when the chief categorically denied that any such instructions were given.
There were positive experiences as well. Attorneys have benefited by early intervention on the part of the trial judge to assist in discovery disputes. Rouse urged more to use Rule 16 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure to involve the court early on in a case, in an effort to make continuances less likely at a later stage.
It is certain that the hardworking judges on the Civil Steering Committee, chaired by Neel, will hear more as they travel from county to county in order to meet with attorneys and improve this project. Most of the problems, the chief said, are the result of the “transition,” and should work themselves out in time.
Attorneys want circumstances and hardships as well as the extraordinary time and costs to all parties to be considered in every request for a continuance or scheduling change.
The three judges did a great deal to address these concerns, and seemed sincerely interested in receiving input from the bar. All agree that under no circumstances can attempts to effect firm trial dates unintentionally sacrifice justice for efficiency.
The MBA can act as a clearinghouse for stories, both positive and negative, which can be assembled and forwarded to the administration for review. In addition, the MBA can provide data from around the commonwealth with respect to the favorability and fair administration of the new program.
Many who are involved hope to provide a forum for ideas to assist the court administration in its desire to become more efficient. All are welcome to participate, including trial judges, who must work daily with attorneys to make the system function properly.
The Firm and Fair Trial Date Initiative is just one of many initiatives that can improve our system tremendously. There is no limit to what can be achieved to improve our trial courts. One thing is certain: Success depends upon input from all who participate in the system.
Rouse’s words, “partnership with the bar,” have already resonated positively throughout the legal community, and the administration is wise to travel throughout the state spreading the word, accepting constructive criticism and remaining flexible with regard to the implementation of this worthy program.
Congratulations to all who have worked tirelessly to transform a good idea into reality and accept input from judges, clerks and attorneys around the commonwealth.
Douglas K. Sheff
Boston
