- Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Thank you, President Hayden, for that kind introduction, and thank you to the Mass. Bar Association for sponsoring this program today. I also want to welcome our other guests from the MBA, including: President-Elect Sam Segal; Vice President Shayla Mombeleur; Treasurer Marc Moccia; Secretary Sabrina Bonanno; Chief Legal Counsel and Chief Operating Officer Marty Healy; and Director of Policy and Operations Lee Constantine.
The MBA and other bar associations are so important to the health of our legal system. By providing education, mentoring, and fellowship for your members; supporting pro bono service, legal aid, and programs like the Judicial Youth Corps; and advocating for the needs of the courts, you help to strengthen our system in so many ways. And in this challenging fiscal year, I particularly appreciate the MBA’s strong support for the courts’ budget requests.
Speaking of court funding, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank our legislative leaders as well for their efforts on behalf of the judiciary, 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 Lydia Edwards.
I also want to thank my colleagues in the judiciary for the dedication and commitment that they display every day, whether it’s on the bench, or in writing decisions, or in handling administrative tasks. Many of them are here today, including colleagues from the SJC, the Appeals Court and Trial Court Chiefs, judges, clerks and other members of our court family.
Finally, I want to specially recognize Trial Court Chief Justice Heidi Brieger and Court Administrator Tom Ambrosino for their leadership of the Trial Court. With its 94 courthouses, hundreds of judges, and well over 6,000 employees, the Trial Court is a sprawling enterprise to manage, and they do it with skill and aplomb.
I would also like to congratulate Chief Justice Brieger for taking on a responsibility that rivals that of being Chief Justice of the Trial Court – serving as grandmother to two new granddaughters, twins Lydia and Phoebe! Although she is not physically here with us, she is with us in spirit and said she would be tuning in. We do have Court Administrator Tom Ambrosino here in person and I look forward to sitting down with him and President Hayden to discuss the issues of the day.
Whether you work inside or outside the judiciary, your efforts in support of the courts are especially important now. Because at times like these, when there seems to be increasing discord and strife in our society, the courts can help to maintain stability and order by resolving disagreements fairly and rationally according to the rule of law.
Judges are human and we certainly make mistakes. But in reaching decisions, we strive to respect the principles established in our state and federal constitutions; to faithfully interpret the statutes enacted by the Legislature; and to follow the guidance embodied in past court decisions.
We endeavor to base our rulings not on personal preferences or political predilections, but on the fundamental tenets by which our democratic society has agreed to govern itself. In the words of the Massachusetts Constitution, we seek to promote "a government of laws and not of men."
That phrase, as you know, appears in Article XXX of the Declaration of Rights, which guarantees the separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. And as judges, we are particularly fortunate here in Massachusetts to be working in a governmental system that clearly supports judicial independence and where judges are appointed rather than being elected.
To be worthy of such independence, however, our courts must also maintain people’s trust and confidence by demonstrating that they are both accountable and accessible to the public. And that is why many of the initiatives we are currently undertaking are targeted at making the courts more transparent and easier to use.
For example, in February the SJC issued updated Judicial Guidelines for Civil Cases with Self-Represented Litigants. These new Guidelines detail the kinds of steps that judges can take – without violating their obligations of impartiality – to ensure that the many litigants who appear in our courts without counsel are fairly heard.
The new Guidelines encourage judges and court staff to explain court procedures to self-represented litigants, and to refer them to resources where they can get help, such as Court Service Centers, Lawyer for the Day programs, or legal service organizations.
The new Guidelines also make it clear that, while the law still applies to all litigants regardless of whether they are represented by counsel, that doesn’t prevent judges from adjusting procedures or technical requirements for self-represented litigants, as long as the opposing party’s right to have the case fairly decided isn't prejudiced.
We have also been working to harness technology to help people navigate courthouses and court procedures more easily. For example: we have completed Wi-Fi upgrades in nearly all of our courthouses, improving access to online resources for court users. And last year we launched a digital signage and wayfinding pilot project in Chelsea District Court that we hope to expand in the future, subject to available financing.
As part of the Affordable Homes Act enacted in 2024, the Legislature authorized procedures for sealing eviction records so that tenants are not perpetually stigmatized by past proceedings. In May, the Housing Court, District Court, and Boston Municipal Court collaborated with Suffolk University Law School’s Legal Innovation and Technology Lab to develop an online program to implement the new law.
This program enables tenants to create and file petitions to seal records of past eviction cases simply by answering a series of questions online. Using this program, tenants can prepare and file a petition to seal past eviction records online. The program has proven to be incredibly popular. Since it was launched, it has been used to prepare and file over 1,000 eviction sealing petitions in the Housing Court.
These are just a few examples of the ways in which technology can make our courts easier to use, and we will continue to pursue additional innovations.
Discussions about technology these days invariably lead to the topic of generative artificial intelligence, or GenAI. My colleagues on the SJC and I recognize that GenAI offers enormous potential for streamlining many aspects of the work of attorneys and courts alike. At the same time, we also recognize that the use of GenAI raises many questions and concerns, especially at this relatively early stage in its development. There are specific questions around reliability, confidentiality, and cost, to name just a few. On a more fundamental level, we must ensure that GenAI does not adversely impact judicial independence and undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.
For these reasons, we are committed to being curious and open-minded about GenAI, while simultaneously being deliberative and thoughtful in how and when we utilize it. Let me outline a few steps the Court has already taken when it comes to this new technology.
As you all are no doubt aware, there has been quite a bit of attention devoted to how attorneys can integrate GenAI into their practices while not running afoul of their ethical obligations. Naturally, this led to the question of whether additions or modifications to the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct were needed to address the use of GenAI in the practice of law. So, we asked the Court's Standing Advisory Committee on the Rules of Professional Conduct to consider that question. They did, and they did not recommend any changes, finding that existing rules and comments provide ample guidance at this time for attorneys as they consider using this latest new technology. The Committee further noted, however, that their recommendation may change as this new technology continues to evolve.
Recently, the SJC also issued interim guidelines for the use of GenAI by judges and other court personnel. For now, we have limited the use of GenAI to administrative tasks. Further, only public information can be used, and the tools must be disabled from retaining or using any information that is entered to train the AI programs themselves. We recognize that these guidelines are a modest first step, but we believe that they are necessary and appropriate for the reasons I first mentioned. Keeping in mind that they are interim guidelines, we expect to update them as we learn more.
Finally, we recognize that GenAI also has the potential to facilitate access to justice for people who cannot afford lawyers. With that in mind, the Access to Justice Commission is studying potential ways to harness these tools to increase access to justice, while minimizing the disparities caused by cost. We look forward to their findings.
Whatever improvements new technologies, including artificial intelligence, may bring, I want to stress that our legal system is, and will remain, centered on human intelligence, understanding and judgment. It ultimately depends on the people who work within the system – whether they are the judges, clerks, court officers, probation officers, and other staff who work for the courts; or the lawyers who advocate on behalf of their clients; or the jurors who render verdicts. And as we go about our daily business in the courts, it’s important to keep in mind our common humanity. I know that the adversarial nature of litigation may cause tempers to flare. But let’s remember and appreciate everyone’s contribution to our joint enterprise of doing justice. Whatever may be going on outside the courthouse doors, we can at least strive to make our courts places where we value one another and treat everyone with dignity and respect. And that is one more way in which we can help to promote stability and order in our society.
Thank you.