Search

A line for a good reason

Issue March 2011 March 2011 By Marc E. Fitzgerald and Megan Christopher

If you visited the Middlesex Probate and Family Court in Cambridge in the fall of 2010 or January of 2011, you may have experienced a feeling of say, Logan Airport. The long lines into the Middlesex Probate and Family Court building on 208 Cambridge St., and to a certain extent, the Old Third District Court, created some headaches and maybe a brain freeze or two for lawyers and litigants over the past several months.

A change in policy requires that attorneys go through the metal detectors rather than be allowed entrance upon showing their bar cards. Recently, Paula Carey, chief justice of the Probate and Family Court Department and Peter DiGangi, first justice of the Middlesex Probate and Family Court, sat down with members of the MBA's Family Law Section Council to address concerns and discuss alternatives.

Judge DiGangi, with the support of the chief justice, implemented this new policy as a result of specific events demonstrating risks to judges and courthouse staff. Since metal detectors were first installed, a number of serious weapons have been confiscated in courts across the commonwealth.

As we who practice in this area know well, emotions run highest when they involve family matters. Attorneys are not immune to those emotions. Some would argue that our declining level of civility is the problem the policy is meant to resolve. We may argue for a consistent policy in all courts. For example, certain courts, such as Suffolk County and Essex County, allow attorneys access without going through the metal detectors. Judge DiGangi's decision provides for a very high level of security in the building, protecting us all.

While the effects of this policy change was first being felt, Judge Carey received a regular stream of e-mails documenting wait times and conditions. She monitored these closely and was fully engaged in seeking a solution. The court obtained a second metal detector, which is now fully operational and in use during the early morning rush.

Court employees have banded together to provide adequate staffing for the additional machine. In general, lines are much shorter and wait times to enter the building average under 10 minutes. Both Judge Carey and Judge DiGangi are committed to hearing, and addressing if possible, legitimate complaints and concerns from members of the bar.

This improvement is hardly an optimal outcome. The illness or other absence of a single court employee now has a tremendous effect. Ensuring the safety and well-being of those waiting outside is an ongoing concern of court officials.

It is to be hoped that no one waiting would object to an elderly or disabled person, or a person with an infant or young child, jumping to the front of the line, particularly in bad weather. Litigants who are parties to a restraining order may step out of line to wait for a safer moment to enter the building. They may call the judicial secretaries' office or the register's office to inform the court about the delay. We, as officers of the court, should promote courtesy and patience among those waiting and provide support to those who need help.

The line is only one symptom of the distress felt in completely under-funded courts. Staff members have the pressures of new tasks, such as document scanning and data entry, in addition to accepting filings from the increasing number of pro se litigants. Judges are forced to undertake secretarial tasks, causing significant delays. We cannot be surprised that we, too, are inconvenienced. We have the justice system, from the front door to the judge's lobby, that we pay for.

2020 - 2025
2025 2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2010 - 2019
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2000 - 2009
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1990 - 1999
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1980 - 1989
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
1973 - 1979
1979
1978
1977
1976
1975
1974
1973