By Sarah R. Boonin
The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) on September 25, 2025 issued an order adopting a new version of S.J.C. Rule 3:03, which regulates law student practice in the Commonwealth and striking the prior version. The new version of S.J.C. Rule 3:03, which took effect on August 1, 2026, represents a major overhaul in the SJC’s approach to regulating student practice since the rule’s initial promulgation in 1980.
The new version of S.J.C. Rule 3:03 clarifies and redefines the parameters around student practice. Section 1 of the new rule expressly states that its purpose is to “cultivate knowledge and competency in the practice of law and promote public service and access to justice” in the Commonwealth. This purpose is critical at this time when a growing number of residents cannot afford counsel and there are increasing demands on law graduates to enter a dynamic legal profession ready for practice.
The prior version of S.J.C. Rule 3:03 was relatively brief and general, supplemented by a lesser-known implementation order. The new S.J.C. Rule 3:03 is comprehensive and designed to incorporate all relevant directives into one set of guidance. As a result, law schools and practicing attorneys must pay close attention to the new rule. Attorneys in government agencies, legal services organizations, nonprofit law offices, and now law firm pro bono practices will have expanded opportunities to utilize and supervise law students and recent graduates under the new rule.
Below is a summary of some of the most notable changes in S.J.C. Rule 3:03, along with some preliminary guidance about how practitioners might prepare for these changes.
First, the new rule includes enhanced requirements for law schools to establish and document their students’ readiness to practice. These include a new dean’s “attestation” as to each student’s “character, legal ability, and training” and an affirmation that the student has completed or is enrolled in evidence and trial practice, as well as legal ethics or its equivalent within a clinic, among other foundational courses. The rule also contains new curricular requirements for practice in criminal courts. Student practitioners must affirm to their law school dean, who in turn must attest, that they are familiar with the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, S.J.C. Rule 3:03 itself, and either the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure or the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure, as applicable. While law schools will manage the documentation of the curricular requirements for law students, supervisors outside of a law school setting who seek to work with Rule 3:03 student practitioners should ensure that their students meet all requirements and maintain familiarity with the requisite rules.
Second, the new rule expands the range of permissible student practice in several substantial ways and expands opportunities for students to build their practice skills earlier in their law school tenure. For example, the prior version of S.J.C. Rule 3:03 required students practicing in criminal courts to complete two-thirds of law school prior to practice (i.e., been enrolled in the final year of a traditional three-year program), and students practicing in civil courts to begin the second year of law school. The new rule allows students in their first year of law school and enrolled in clinics to practice in civil matters, and students in their second year of law school enrolled in clinics to practice in criminal matters in the Boston Municipal Court or the District Court, provided these students are directly supervised in their practice and have met certain curricular pre- and co-requisites. The new rule also expands the kinds of criminal matters and criminal courts in which students may practice. For example, the new rule permits students who have completed two-thirds of law school and are enrolled in a clinical program to appear in Superior Court under direct supervision at certain stages of cases where the maximum sentence is less than imprisonment for life. The new rule also permits students to appear before the Appeals Court with advance notice and before the SJC with notice and permission of the Court, also with direct supervision.
Another expansion of student practice in the new rule is that law students can represent clients in pro bono matters while working at law firms. The prior rule, by contrast, limited student practice to those supervised by government lawyers, Committee for Public Counsel Services panel attorneys, law school clinics, and legal services programs. The new rule not only opens up opportunities for students to practice while working at law firms, but also allows recently graduated students to more fully participate in pro bono practice at their firms pending bar admission.
Next, the new rule contains a number of provisions designed to enhance the Commonwealth’s tracking of student practice. Unlike the prior rule, which allowed for streamlined modification of the certification within a particular placement or from one placement to another, the new rule ties student certification to practice to a precise time frame and to the individual supervisor and placement listed on the student’s initial certification form. Any change in that information requires notice and updated paperwork. For example, new certifications are now required for students who move to a second placement or who continue at a current placement past the end date listed in the certification. Lawyers supervising student practitioners should be aware of the dates, placement, and individual supervisors named on their students’ Rule 3:03 certifications to assist students in seeking new certifications and notifying the clerk and courts, when the need arises.
Likewise, under the new rule, the student’s supervising attorney (along with the student and dean of the law school) must provide notice to the Clerk of the SJC and the court or agency in which they are practicing within seven days if student supervision is going to terminate before the anticipated end date or if the student practitioner leaves the placement or program early. The supervising attorney must also timely notify the Clerk of the SJC and the relevant court or agency in which they are practicing any time a supervisor other than the one listed on the certification oversees the student’s work. Along similar lines, the new rule contains enhanced requirements for student appearances and withdrawals. These additional requirements require supervising attorneys to carefully monitor the limitations of each student’s certification and ensure they remain up to date before having students or recent graduates represent clients. Lawyers in offices with dynamic or shared supervision models, such as district attorneys’ offices, need to be especially mindful of these new requirements.
Like the prior version of the rule, the new rule permits students who attained Rule 3:03 certification while in law school to continue to practice after graduation and until admission to the bar. However, graduates seeking to work in new placements will need to apply for new Rule 3:03 certifications. Graduates from other jurisdictions who were previously certified under analogous student-practice rules may now practice in Massachusetts pending their admission to the Massachusetts bar. The availability of reciprocity will allow employers like public defenders and prosecutors offices to hire recent graduates from a broader range of jurisdictions who can immediately represent clients in court. And as noted, the new rule also creates new opportunities for recent graduates to use their Rule 3:03 certifications on behalf of indigent clients in pro bono matters at private law firms.
Another aspect of the new rule is that it expressly gives judges discretion to limit student practice in their courtrooms. While discretion to limit student practice was always a part of a judge’s general authority to manage the courtroom, the new rule explicitly provides that, “[a]bsent unusual circumstances,” judges “should permit student practitioners to appear as set forth in this rule, provided the student practitioner is sufficiently prepared, knowledgeable, and competent to appear before the particular court or agency and their educational experience will not interfere with the orderly administration of justice.”
As a result, supervisors should ensure that their student practitioners can meet the requirements of the rule. The new rule makes more explicit the responsibilities of supervising attorneys. The new rule spells out a supervising attorney’s obligations to “ensure that the student practitioner is sufficiently prepared and competent to appear and is familiar with the rules, standing orders, and regulations of the court” and to “review and sign all pleadings, motions, and memoranda.” It delineates between contexts in which an attorney’s “general” supervision versus “direct” supervision is required, defining both terms. Notably, it spells out the potential consequences of a supervising attorney’s failure to provide proper oversight and training, which may include disciplinary action against the attorney. Supervisors of law students should therefore be diligent in fulfilling their supervisory duties and aware of the potential consequences of violating them.
In short, the new S.J.C. Rule 3:03 is likely to trigger significant changes to student practice in Massachusetts. Some changes will expand opportunities for students to gain valuable practical experience, both earlier in their law school careers and in private firm settings. Other modifications will require additional documentation and oversight by law schools and supervisors.
As noted by past BBA President Hannah Kilson in her comments to the proposed new rule submitted on behalf of the BBA:
“[L]aw students play a critical role in helping to address the access to justice crisis in Massachusetts. Through law school clinical programs and school year and summer internships with legal services providers and other pro bono organizations, law students make substantial and invaluable contributions to our shared goal of expanding access to justice. Law students are force multipliers. They expand the capacity of organizations to provide free legal representation at all times of the year and in all manner of case types, everything from housing law to family law, and from safety net benefits to criminal law, and much more. Rule 3:03 is the mechanism by which this army of public-service minded law students—working under attorney supervision—can appear in court and before other tribunals on behalf of low-income clients.”
Massachusetts law schools and practitioners must now work collaboratively with one another and the courts to implement Rule 3:03 to help ensure it indeed does cultivate knowledge and competency in the practice of law and promote public service and access to justice.
Sarah R. Boonin is the Associate Dean for Experiential Learning and a Clinical Professor at Suffolk University Law School. As Associate Dean, she has oversight of all skills-based programs, including clinical programs, externships, legal writing, and advocacy programs. She served as the founding director of Suffolk Law’s Health Law Clinic, and teaches and writes on topics of health law, disability, reproductive rights, and legal ethics.
