Posts tagged "Chief"

Deputy Chief Counsel for the Public Defender Division of the Committee for Public Counsel Services, et al. v. Acting First Justice of the Lowell Division of the District Court Department (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-084-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   SJC-12121   DEPUTY CHIEF COUNSEL FOR THE PUBLIC DEFENDER DIVISION OF THE COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC COUNSEL SERVICES & another[1]  vs.  ACTING FIRST JUSTICE OF THE LOWELL DIVISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT DEPARTMENT.       Suffolk.     November 9, 2016. – May 24, 2017.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, & Budd, JJ.     Committee for Public Counsel Services.  District Court, Drug court session.       Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on February 23, 2016.   The case was reported by Duffly, J.     Paul R. Rudof, Committee for Public Counsel Services (Ryan M. Schiff, Committee for Public Counsel Services, also present) for the plaintiffs. Bethany L. Stevens for the defendant.     HINES, J.  This matter is before us on a reservation and report, by a single justice of this court, of a petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.  The petition, brought by the Deputy Chief Counsel for the Public Defender Division of the Committee for Public Counsel Services and the Deputy Chief Counsel for the Private Counsel Division of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (collectively CPCS), sought an order affirming CPCS’s independent authority under G. L. c. 211D to select and supervise attorneys for indigent defendants in the pilot program it had launched in the drug court session of the Lowell Division of the District Court Department (drug court).  The issue arose after the Acting First Justice of the Lowell District Court (Justice), citing the need for a “team” approach to cases in the drug Court, removed CPCS attorneys from drug court cases to which they had been assigned and excluded CPCS attorneys from assignment to any new case in the drug court. The single justice, in her reservation and report, observed that “the matter raises some important legal questions that ought to be decided by the full court, concerning specialty courts in general and adult drug courts in particular, and the respective roles and responsibilities of judges, [CPCS], and individual defense attorneys.”  The issue highlights the tension that may arise between an attorney’s duty to zealously advocate for the rights of the drug court defendant and a drug court model that favors a collaborative and nonadversarial approach to supervision of the drug court defendant.  We recognize that the success of drug court outcomes depends in large part […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 24, 2017 at 7:41 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Oggiani v. Chief Justice of the Trial Court, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-007-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   SJC-12120   JOAN E. OGGIANI  vs.  CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE TRIAL COURT & others.[1]       January 6, 2017.     Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts, Removal of register of probate.     Joan E. Oggiani appeals from a judgment of the county court denying her petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, from a decision of the register of the Berkshire Division of the Probate and Family Court Department of the Trial Court, with the approval of the Chief Justice of the Probate and Family Court, removing her designation as deputy assistant register pursuant to G. L. c. 217, § 29D.[2]  We affirm the judgment.   Oggiani, who has been an employee of the Berkshire Division of the Probate and Family Court since 1980, was designated as the deputy assistant register when that position was created in 1993.  As deputy assistant register, she had certain responsibilities in addition to those of her primary position as a judicial secretary, and she received additional compensation as required by the statute.  In 2015, the register requested the approval of the Chief Justice of the Probate and Family Court to remove Oggiani’s designation, stating that her performance as deputy assistant register did not meet his expectations.[3]  Oggiani objected and disagreed with the register’s characterization of her performance, but the Chief Justice of the Probate and Family Court approved the register’s request.  Oggiani then asked the Chief Justice of the Trial Court and the Court Administrator to review the decision.[4]  They responded that the decision was final.   The single justice did not abuse his discretion or commit an error of law by denying Oggiani’s petition for relief in these circumstances.[5]  Under the plain language of G. L. c. 217, § 29D, a register has the authority to designate and remove a deputy assistant register.  These appear to be discretionary decisions for the register to make, subject only to the approval of the Chief Justice of the Probate and Family Court.[6]  The statute does not state that a register must establish good cause — or indeed, any reason at all — for removal.  This is not a case where the employee alleges that her designation was removed on an improper basis such as race or gender discrimination under G. L. c. 151B, in violation of any public policy, or without good faith.  She only disagrees with […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - January 7, 2017 at 1:50 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , ,

L.B., et al. v. Chief Justice of the Probate and Family Court Department, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-060-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   SJC-11892   L.B. & another[1]  vs.  CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE PROBATE AND FAMILY COURT DEPARTMENT & others.[2] Suffolk.     October 5, 2015. – May 4, 2016.   Present:  Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.     Probate Court, Guardian.  Due Process of Law, Assistance of counsel.  Constitutional Law, Assistance of counsel.  Practice, Civil, Assistance of counsel.       Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on May 6, 2015.   The case was reported by Botsford, J.     Laura Williams Gal (Christina L. Paradiso with her) for L.B. & another. Norah E. Kane for the minor children of L.B. Jo Ann Shotwell Kaplan, Assistant Attorney General, for Chief Justice of the Probate and Family Court Department. Deborah W. Kirchwey for the minor child of C.L. Jamie Ann Sabino, Susan R. Elsen, Mary K. Ryan, & Melanie V. Woodward, for Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, Inc., & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief. Andrew L. Cohen, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for Committee for Public Counsel Services, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. Susan M. Finnegan, Sandra J. Badin, & Geoffrey A. Friedman, for S.D., amicus curiae, submitted a brief. Richard M. Page, Jr., for Boston Bar Association, amicus curiae, joined in a brief.     SPINA, J.  In Guardianship of V.V., 470 Mass. 590 (2015), we held that a parent whose minor child is the subject of a guardianship petition pursuant to G. L. c. 190B, § 5-206, and who cannot afford counsel has a right to have counsel appointed and to be so informed.  The issue in this case is whether a parent also has a right to counsel if and when the parent petitions to have the guardian removed or to have the terms of the guardianship modified.  We conclude that a parent does have a right to counsel for certain of those types of petitions.  We also offer some guidance to the Probate and Family Court, where these private guardianships occur, for the development of rules and policies to implement this right to counsel. Procedural history.  The plaintiffs, L.B. and C.L., are the mothers of minor children for whom guardians were appointed, in 2012 and 2013 respectively, pursuant to G. L. c. 190B, § 5-206.  They commenced this action in the county court in 2015, challenging a written policy of the Chief Justice of the Probate and […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 4, 2016 at 2:44 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Chief of Police of the City of Worcester v. Holden (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-041-15)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   SJC-11682   CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE CITY OF WORCESTER  vs.  RAYMOND J. HOLDEN, JR.   Worcester.     November 6, 2014. – March 11, 2015.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.       Firearms.  License.  Constitutional Law, Right to bear arms, Vagueness of statute.  Due Process of Law, Revocation of license, Vagueness of statute.  Words, “Suitable person.”       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on December 6, 2011.   The case was heard by James R. Lemire, J., on motions for judgment on the pleadings.   The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.     Mel L. Greenberg for the defendant. Kevin M. Gould, Assistant City Solicitor (David M. Moore, City Solicitor, with him) for the plaintiff. Julia Kobick, Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth, amicus curiae. The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: Jonathan E. Lowy, Kelly Sampson, Elizabeth Burke, Jonathan L. Diesenhaus, James W. Clayton, & Anna M. Kelly, of the District of Columbia, & Kathy B. Weinman for Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Ben T. Clements & Lila E. Slovak for Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, Inc., & others. Edward F. George, Jr., & Susan Chu for Gun Owners’ Action League, Inc. Karen L. MacNutt for Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc.     SPINA, J.  This case mounts a challenge under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution[1] to the constitutionality of the “suitable person” standard in G. L. c. 140, § 131 (d) and (f), as amended through St. 1998, c. 180, § 41, by which licenses to carry firearms were issued, suspended, or revoked between 2005 and 2010.[2]  The chief of police of the city of Worcester (chief) determined, based on the history of domestic violence of Raymond J. Holden, Jr., against his wife, that Holden was not a suitable person to have such a license.  Holden sought judicial review of three separate adverse decisions of the chief:  suspension of his license, then revocation of his license, and finally denial of his application for a new license to carry.  After a complex history of District Court litigation that was consolidated and resolved largely in favor of Holden, the chief sought certiorari review in the Superior Court.  On cross motions for judgment on the pleadings, a judge in the Superior Court ruled in favor of the […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - March 11, 2015 at 4:07 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , ,

Campatelli v. Chief Justice of the Trial Court, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-110-14)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750;  (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us     SJC‑11654 PATRICIA CAMPATELLI  vs.  CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE TRIAL COURT  & others.[1] Suffolk.     May 8, 2014.  ‑  June 20, 2014. Present:  Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.   Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  Register of Probate.  Chief Justice of the Probate and Family Court Department.  Chief Justice of the Trial Court.  Court Administrator.  Statute, Construction.  Practice, Civil, Waiver.       Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on March 14, 2014.   The case was reserved and reported by Duffly, J.     Philip R. Boncore (Jeffrey Rosario Turco with him) for the plaintiff. Peter Haley for Association of Magistrates and Assistant Clerks of the Trial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, amicus curiae. Daniel P. Sullivan, Special Assistant Attorney General, for the defendants.       BOTSFORD, J.  The Register of Probate and Insolvency for Suffolk County, Patricia Campatelli, was placed on paid administrative leave — suspended with pay — by the Chief Justice of the Probate and Family Court Department, the Chief Justice of the Trial Court, and the Court Administrator, pending further investigation of allegations of inappropriate conduct and mismanagement in the performance of her duties.  Campatelli commenced this action in the county court to challenge her suspension by the three named court officials; her claim is that only the justices of this court possess the authority to suspend her, pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 4.  We do not interpret c. 211, § 4, to vest sole authority in this court or its justices to suspend with pay a register of probate, and conclude that the Chief Justice of the Trial Court, the Court Administrator, and the Chief Justice of the Probate and Family Court Department possess the authority to do so pursuant to G. L. c. 211B, §§ 9, 9A, and 10, respectively. Background.  Campatelli disputes the allegations and findings contained in the record regarding her conduct in office, but the facts relating to the legal issues before us are undisputed.  In November, 2012, Campatelli was elected as the Register of Probate and Insolvency for Suffolk County (register of probate, or register); she took office on January 3, 2013.  See G. L. c. 217, § 4.  As register, Campatelli served in the Suffolk County Division of the Probate and Family Court Department of the Trial Court.  On December 22, […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 20, 2014 at 3:54 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , ,

Boston Fire Chief Resigns Amid Bombings Controversy

After two years on the job, Boston’s top fire official has resigned in the wake of his supposed controversial handling of response to the Boston Marathon Bombings. The Boston Globe reports Steve E. Abraira, chief of the Boston Fire Department, has resigned following complaints from 13 deputy chiefs who have accused him of failing to take control of the scene of the bombings April 15. In an April letter to Mayor Thomas Menino, the deputy chiefs claim Abraira left the scene in the “hand of law enforcement,” according to the story. Abraira has argued that the scene appeared under control when he arrived.  Abraira was the first Boston Fire chief in history hired from outside its union, the Globe reports. South End Patch

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 3, 2013 at 5:44 pm

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , , , ,