District/Municipal Court Rules  Joint Standing Order 1-26: Order on remote court hearings

The Boston Municipal Court Department and the District Court Department recognize the value of remote hearings or events for certain court proceedings. When used appropriately, remote court appearances can improve access to justice by reducing travel, time off from work, childcare, and transportation barriers for parties, witnesses, and attorneys. While remote court appearances are appropriate for some matters, courts are still required to maintain in-person proceedings in those situations where they are constitutionally or statutorily mandated, or where credibility, fairness, and due process concerns require them.

As Chief Justices of the Boston Municipal Court Department and District Court Department, we issue the following Joint Standing Order pursuant to our authority under G.L. c. 211, § 10, G.L. c. 218, § 38, and G.L. c. 220, § 5.¹

This Standing Order shall REPLACE and SUPERSEDE all prior orders concerning video conferencing. It is hereby ORDERED, effective June 1, 2026:

The following events may be held remotely unless otherwise ordered by a judge or clerk-magistrate:

1. Criminal compliance and election hearings;
2. Hearings on non-evidentiary motions in all cases, including speedy trial requests;
3. Assignment of trial dates;
4. Status hearings;
5. Summary process hearings apart from trials;
6. Criminal show cause hearings;
7. Hearings on probation matters other than detention or violation hearings;
8. Civil motor vehicle infraction hearings and appeals;
9. Civil case management conferences and pre-trial conferences, non-evidentiary motions, and judicial settlement conferences;
10. Appellate Division hearings, unless the presiding justice orders the matter be heard in person; and
11. Any other event that a judge or clerk-magistrate allows to occur remotely and that is permitted by law.

Judges retain discretion to determine the location of G.L. c. 123 hearings and whether to hold the hearing remotely. This Standing Order makes no presumption as to the location of G.L. c. 123 hearings or whether they are held remotely or in person, other than proceedings under §§ 12, 15, & 35, where the respondent is in the custody of the police; only those proceedings are presumptively to be held in person so that custody may be removed from the police.

Recognizing the varied needs and resources of different courts, the volume and scheduling differences in such hearings based on the number of facilities within a court’s jurisdiction, and the strict deadlines applicable to these proceedings, it is up to individual courts to determine where to schedule G.L. c. 123 hearings for persons who are currently hospitalized on a pending commitment petition, including those held within the strict security of Bridgewater State Hospital, and whether to schedule such hearings in person or remotely. See G.L. c. 123, § 5.

The following non-exclusive list of factors should be considered, and the initial scheduling of filed petitions may be done in a manner to ensure compliance with the applicable time frames, prompt assignment of counsel, and notice of the hearing:

• the number of scheduled cases in the mental health session;
• the number of facilities within an individual court’s jurisdiction;
• the particular transportation needs for the facilities within the court’s jurisdiction;
• whether a facility allows hearings to be conducted in person or are restricting access to outside persons;
• the staffing needs to hold an in-person hearing, including, if in person at the courthouse, the availability of sufficient mental health workers to oversee a patient;
• the court’s technological capacity to hold remote hearings;
• the facility’s technological capacity to hold remote hearings;
• the availability of a formal and dignified hearing room sufficient in size to accommodate the judge, clerk, court officer(s), and the public;
• ensuring the facility is able to provide sufficient security for all parties;
• ensuring the hearing will be fully and completely recorded;
• ensuring the hearing will be open and accessible to the public.

Regardless of whether an individual court schedules its commitment hearings remotely or in person, a judge retains discretion to determine on a case-by-case basis where to hold the hearing and whether remotely or in person. A judge shall consider any motion filed requesting a change to the scheduling of the hearing, and shall consider the above-listed factors, as well as the following non-exclusive factors:

• the issues presented;
• the location of the participants;
• the health status of the participants;
• the transmission rate of any communicable diseases where the facility is located.

A judge shall make written findings if the judge denies a request for an in-person hearing.

Appearing remotely means one or all parties appear by telephone, computer, videoconference, or comparable means (e.g., Zoom). A party’s request to appear remotely waives any objection to other parties appearing in person. If counsel appears in person, counsel may request, and the judge or clerk-magistrate may allow, the party’s presence be waived, or request the party to appear remotely, if doing so is allowed by law. The requirement for a party (or parties) appear in person does not preclude an attorney or witness from appearing remotely if the judge or clerk-magistrate presiding over the hearing allows it, and doing so is allowed by law.

Parties are required to attend all other court events in person unless the party requests and the judge or clerk allows, or the judge or clerk orders the party to appear remotely, and doing so is allowed by law. Whether court events are held in person or remotely, the court may waive a party’s presence upon request or if the party is represented by counsel and when doing so is allowed by law.

No person shall take any photographs, or make any recording or transmission by electronic means, of a remote or hybrid court hearing, without prior authorization from the judge or clerk magistrate having immediate supervision over the remote or hybrid hearing, consistent with Supreme Judicial Court Rule 1:19, which governs electronic access to the courts.

For purposes of public access to in-person, remote, or hybrid hearings open to the public, members of the public may access court hearings as follows:

1. For in-person hearings, where no party appears remotely, members of the public shall attend in person.
2. For remote hearings, where all parties attend remotely, members of the public may access the hearing remotely.
3. For hybrid hearings, where at least one party attends in person, while at least one other party or participant appears remotely, members of the public shall attend in person.
   
   Members of the public may seek permission from the court to access a hybrid hearing remotely.

Members of the public seeking specific information or instructions on public access to in-person, remote, or hybrid hearings in a particular case shall contact the Clerk’s Office for further details.

This Order is effective June 1, 2026, and shall remain in effect until further order of these Courts.