BBA Led Amici in Urging the Court to Do So, in Furtherance of Access to Justice
BOSTON, MA – In a unanimous ruling today, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) underscored the importance of compliance with a rule requiring notice to the Massachusetts IOLTA Committee before the approval of any class action settlement that may produce residual funds, so that the Committee may address “whether it ought to be a recipient of any or all residual funds.”
On behalf of nine other organizations, the BBA had submitted an amicus brief arguing that the rule “is the mechanism through which residual funds are directed to legal aid and access-to-justice initiatives” and its notice provision “is part of a well-considered, codified effort to ensure that residual funds from class action settlements are used for the common interest.”
The brief, drafted by BBA Vice President Christopher Escobedo Hart of Foley Hoag, also pointed to the importance of “vigilant enforcement” of any court rule—lest parties ignore it, to the point that it becomes a “dead letter”—and stated, “The SJC has the opportunity now to provide clear guidance that conformity to the rule is mandatory and is necessary to safeguard the public interest.”
Writing for the Court, Justice Serge Georges traced the history and purpose of Mass. R. Civ. P. 23 (e) before clarifying that compliance with the rule is mandatory and cautioning that trial courts have a role to play in ensuring that the Committee receives the required notice.
Although the decision did not go so far as to vacate the settlement at issue—which had received court approval below, notwithstanding the rule violation—Vice President Hart said, “I am optimistic that the end result will encourage greater compliance with Rule 23, to the benefit of access to justice across the Commonwealth.”
The other amici on the BBA brief were De Novo Center for Justice and Healing, Greater Boston Legal Services, Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corporation, MetroWest Legal Services, National Association of IOLTA Programs, National Consumer Law Center, National Legal Aid and Defender Association, and the Political Asylum/Immigration Representation Project.
The case was argued on behalf of the IOLTA Committee by Douglas Salvesen.
“Amicus Curiae” means, literally, “friend of the court.” Since 1975, the BBA has filed amicus briefs on matters related to the practice of law or the administration of justice. The 2025-2026 BBA Amicus Committee is co-chaired by Ian Roffman of Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP and Emily Schulman of Harvard Law School.
