- Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Thank you, President Santoro, for that kind introduction, and thank you for taking part in our program today. I also want to welcome our other guests from the MBA: President-Elect Michael Hayden; Vice President Sam Segal; Treasurer Shayla Mombeleur; Secretary Marc Moccia; the MBA's longtime Chief Legal Counsel and Chief Operating Officer Marty Healy; and Director of Policy and Operations Lee Constantine. On behalf of the entire Massachusetts Court System, thanks to all of you, and to the Mass. Bar Association, for supporting this event.
The MBA and other bar associations play a critical role in sustaining our legal system, through mentoring your members, supporting pro bono programs and public service, encouraging civic engagement, and supporting the courts in so many ways.
As just two examples, we deeply appreciate the MBA’s development of a virtual lawyer-for-the-day program in Superior Court, and the Mass. Bar Foundation’s support for the Ralph D. Gants Judicial Scholarship Program, which provides stipends that enable law students with financial needs to accept unpaid judicial internships. We are so grateful for all that you do.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Governor Maura Healey and Lieutenant Governor Kim Driscoll, and our legislative leaders – including House Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka; the Ways and Means Committee Co-Chairs, Representative Aaron Michlewitz and Senator Michael Rodrigues; and the Judiciary Committee Co-Chairs, Representative Mike Day and Senator Jamie Eldridge – for their strong support of the judiciary. They make our work possible through annual appropriations, authorization of additional judicial positions when necessary, and funding for special projects such as the IT bond bill that is enabling us to upgrade technology across the court system.
I also want to thank Governor Healey, Lieutenant Governor Driscoll, and the members of the Governor’s Council for the appointment of two new members of the SJC earlier this year, Justice Elizabeth Dewar and Justice Gabrielle Wolohojian. We are so pleased to have them join us.
In addition, I would like to express my appreciation to Trial Court Chief Justice Heidi Brieger and Court Administrator Tom Ambrosino for their terrific leadership of the Trial Court and for participating in this program today.
And I am grateful to all my colleagues in the judiciary for their teamwork and dedication. Many of them are here today, including my colleagues from the SJC, Justices Wendlandt, Georges, and Dewar; and our Trial Court colleagues Tracy Lee Lyons, Chief Justice of the Boston Municipal Court, Gordon Piper, Chief Justice of the Land Court, Diana Horan, Chief Justice of the Housing Court, and John Casey, Chief Justice of the Probate and Family Court.
And finally, to all of you both here in the audience and watching online, welcome, and thank you for joining us.
We have a lot to talk about this afternoon, including transitions in court leadership, improvements in court technology and security, significant rule changes, and some ongoing projects to increase efficiency in case management and better support litigants who cannot afford counsel.
But first, I would like to take a few minutes to address another overarching issue that is essential to the success of our legal system – the importance of maintaining public trust and confidence in the courts.
Alexander Hamilton famously called the judiciary the weakest branch of government.[1] We wield no power of our own, but for the power that others give us by respecting our decisions.
But unfortunately, today there are serious signs that respect for the courts is declining across the country.
I am a member of the Committee on Public Engagement, Trust and Confidence of the national Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators. In August, our Committee reported that, in annual polls conducted for the National Center for State Courts, the percentage of people who believe that state courts provide equal justice for all “well” or “very well” has declined from 62% to 46% in the last 10 years.[2]
As you might imagine, the problem isn’t limited to state courts. According to Gallup, the percentage of people reporting that they have a great deal or fair amount of trust and confidence in the federal judiciary has fallen from a high of 80% in 1999, to 48% this year.[3]
So what are the reasons for this decline in public trust in the courts? Based on focus group interviews, our Committee Report explains that, quote, “Many believe two systems of justice exist. There is one system for those with influence, connections, and power, and another one for everyone else.... For virtually all of those from minority communities, race was also seen as a contributing factor.”
“There were complaints about the courts seeming too bureaucratic and difficult to navigate…. Above all, there is a sense that courts are disconnected and out of touch with the people and local communities they serve. Rather than providers of justice for all, courts are seen as gatekeepers of a power imbalance between the haves and have-nots.”[4]
So what do we do to address this decline in public trust? While civics education is vitally important, our Committee’s Report said that that’s not enough. As judges, we need to engage more directly with our communities and show how we are addressing their needs and concerns through innovative projects such as specialized dockets, diversion programs, and mental health initiatives.[5] We also need to recognize that “judicial independence and judicial accountability are two sides of the same coin.”[6] We must emphasize accountability and transparency in our operations and remind the public that we are subject to codes of ethics.
Here in Massachusetts, we have been working to improve the public perception of our courts through initiatives that make the courts more accessible. To measure the court user experience, the Trial Court has conducted an Access and Fairness Survey that provides the court with an opportunity to survey court users about their experiences. The Trial Court’s 2023 Access and Fairness Survey found that “8 out of 10 court users reported being treated with courtesy and respect, served by attentive court staff, and satisfied with their overall court experience.”[7] And over 80 percent of respondents gave our state courts positive ratings on most measures of access and fairness.[8]
Obviously, we are not perfect. We still have much work to do, and we need to remain committed every day to doing that work, identifying and acknowledging where we still come up short, and striving to improve. Nonetheless, we are making progress, and I believe that progress may be attributable to the fact that our courts have been doing the kind of work that is recommended in the Committee Report.
With regard to ethics, accountability, and transparency, we have a strong Code of Judicial Ethics, updated in 2016, that is enforced by the Commission on Judicial Conduct, and supported by advisory opinions from the SJC Committee on Judicial Ethics. We also have a Code of Professional Responsibility for clerks, registers, and their assistants.
The vast majority of court proceedings are open to the public, and we routinely allow news cameras in the courtroom.[9] Oral arguments before both the SJC and the Appeals Court are live-streamed, and recordings are available online. And both appellate courts hold sittings in communities across the state, so that people can come and see that work in person.
We actively solicit input from attorneys and other court users, as well as court employees, about what we can do better. And we take that feedback seriously. I already mentioned the Access and Fairness Surveys conducted by the Trial Court. In addition, we routinely seek public comment on rule changes. And we recently resumed our Judicial Performance Evaluation program – after a hiatus due to the COVID-19 pandemic – by sending out surveys about judges in selected courts to over 10,000 lawyers and over 1,000 court employees, as well as to jurors.
Last year, with the help of the Flaschner Judicial Institute, the SJC and the Appeals Court also sent a survey to over 4,500 attorneys seeking their views about the appellate process, and then we held a conference in December where 200 lawyers met with justices and staff from both courts to discuss the topics raised in the survey responses. And we have taken steps to address the attorneys’ requests, such as creating a database of substantive single-justice opinions, and contracting for development of a more robust appellate case management and docketing system.
We have also been working diligently to improve the court user experience. You will hear more about this in a few moments, but just to highlight a few examples:
The Trial Court is carrying out projects to provide public Wi-Fi and digital signage to make our courthouses easier to use and navigate. To assist court users who cannot afford a lawyer, the Trial Court provides eight local Court Service Centers throughout the Commonwealth, plus a ninth virtual Court Service Center, to help court users understand court procedures and fill out forms. Court Service Centers also provide extensive language access, and computer access, to those who need them. In addition, thanks to the support of bar associations and legal aid organizations, many of our courts offer lawyer-for-the-day programs. And an SJC committee is updating Judicial Guidelines to better support judges in working with litigants who must represent themselves.
Under the leadership of the Chief Justice and the Court Administrator, the Trial Court has created the Office of Access, Diversity, and Fairness to bring together and coordinate many different functions that affect the court user experience. The Trial Court has also been pursuing a new training program for all court personnel to address issues of racism and bias and support diversity, equity, and inclusion. And the SJC is continuing to convene meetings with the Chief Justices of all the courts, the Court Administrator, and the Commissioner of Probation to hold ourselves accountable for making progress in these areas.
We have also created, and are continuing to pursue, the kinds of innovative solutions to community problems that are recommended in the Public Engagement Committee Report that I mentioned earlier. For instance, we have over 60 specialty courts that focus on substance use disorders, mental health issues, and the needs of families, veterans, and people who are homeless. The Trial Court’s Project NORTH program provides voluntary court-based recovery support navigation for eligible individuals dealing with substance use disorders, including short-term assistance with rent in a certified sober house and transportation to relevant services. The Probation Service is also doing a lot of work to help people connect with behavioral health services and social supports in the community while they are on probation or parole, or when they are about to leave, or have recently left, or jail or prison. And in June, we held a court-wide program for all judges based on the updated SJC Standards on Substance Use Disorders and Mental Health Conditions that were issued last year, and we will be pursuing more training on this topic.
Meanwhile, another SJC Committee has been working to develop a pilot program to incorporate restorative justice practices in selected criminal cases, giving victims and their communities more of a voice in shaping what offenders must do to repair the harm they have caused.
I believe that all of these initiatives are making a difference, and I look forward to continuing the work with all of our internal and external stakeholders. I also look forward to discussing this work, and other topics, this afternoon with President Santoro, Chief Justice Brieger, and Court Administrator Ambrosino.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[1] Federalist No. 78.
[2] Beyond Civics Education, Report and recommendations from the CCJ/COSCA Public Engagement, Trust, and Confidence Committee, National Center for State Courts, August 2024, 4-5.
[3] Jeffrey M. Jones, Party Divisions in Views of Supreme Court Keep Ratings Low, Gallup, October 3, 2024.
[4] Beyond Civics Education, 7.
[5] Beyond Civics Education, 15.
[6] Beyond Civics Education, 13.
[7] Report on the 2023 Access and Fairness Survey, Massachusetts Trial Court (December 2023), at 1, https://www.mass.gov/doc/massachusetts-trial-court-report-on-the-2023-access-and-fairness-survey/download.
[8] Id. at 17.
[9] See SJC Rule 1:19.