Access to Justice: New Procedures in Probate & Family Court
These procedures include certain requirements intended to promote predictability and uniformity of practice for the scheduling of all types of hearings in the Probate and Family Courts throughout the Commonwealth. The practices include mandatory scheduling of a next event and other requirements intended to keep cases moving forward.
One of the changes is to the Motion scheduling practice. Although some courts, such as Plymouth Probate & Family Court, previously allowed for scheduling of Motions at the discretion of the litigants (within the Notice rules), other courts, such as Norfolk, Middlesex and Suffolk Counties, only allowed for scheduling of Motions by the rules of their individual trial departments. According to the Chief Justice's new procedures:
"There shall be no restrictions on the number or timing of motions which
may be filed except as set forth above regardless of the nature of the underlying
complaint..."
The exception is that the First Justices shall have discretion, with the approval of the Chief Justice, to limit the marking of Motions. "Any limitation on motion sessions approved by the Chief Justice shall be posted in the division (Registry of Probate and courtrooms) and on the web site of the Probate and Family Court."
This should result in greater consistency throughout the counties, something probably more noticeable to attorneys than individual litigants. In the counties that used to limit the number of Motions, this will also result in getting into court more quickly (usually something desired by clients).
There is a downside though as well. At a recent Motion session in Suffolk which I attended with a client, there were 76 Motions scheduled. Luckily we were number three, but I would hate to be number 76. Although you might get into court a week or two before you otherwise would have, you should plan to be there all day.
Hopefully, as the courts get used to the new system these overloaded days will be less likely. Either way, I believe consistency of procedure among the counties is a good thing. Access to Justice should be the same no matter where you live.
This entry was posted on at 4:26 PM and is filed under Motion, Probate and Family Court, Procedure. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response.
- No comments yet.
VIP Followers
Info recommended by:
Webpages of law
Popular entries
-
Several in-the-know readers have passed along an incendiary anonymous memo making the rounds among administrators and trustees regarding fin...
-
(BY HUGO) Environmental Defence Canada recently published a report, Down the Drain: Water Conservation in the Great Lakes Basin , that shows...
-
To paraphrase Mark Harris , it seems that Scott Rothstein continues to rule our world. Here's the latest: 1. Bill Scherer sues the fir...
-
(BY HUGO) The Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks has published 2 new project regulations . One is to amend the Regul...
-
(BY HUGO) On 27 October 2010, Professor Jake Peters from the USGS Georgia Water Science Centre will give a conference on inter-state tension...
-
The AFL-CIO blog claims a new study shows the excise tax on "Cadillac" health plans would affect significantly more non-union w...
-
Acting NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon has issued a report on social media cases. Anyone who fails to consider the NLRA in general and the...
-
So who else is going to the Federation Judicial Reception tonight: This year’s Judicial Reception will recognize three outstanding legal pr...
-
When I first read this story about a potential conflict of interest involving the "extremely Floridian" GrayRobinson that is bei...
-
My students and readers of this blog know my support for Dana Corp 's approach to ensure that employees' right to select union r...