Starting in January, every lawyer who walks into a Massachusetts courthouse could be sent through the same metal detector and X-ray belt as everyone else. The Trial Court is considering a policy requiring “all attorneys entering Trial Court courthouse facilities to undergo the Security Department’s standard entrance screening procedures, including metal detector screening,” according to its public notice. The comment period closes Wednesday, October 14, 2026.
Lawyers are pushing back hard. The Massachusetts Association of Private Appointed Counsel says the plan would “slow the work of justice and cast doubt on the lawyers who do it,” WBUR reported Monday. A letter in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly the same day called it “useless bureaucracy” and argued there is “no reason to require additional bureaucratic processes for well-known lawyers like Kevin Reddington,” Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney. As written, the proposal makes no exception for him or anyone else with a bar card.
What the Trial Court is proposing
The notice, posted on mass.gov, says:
- Who: all attorneys entering Trial Court courthouse facilities.
- What: the Security Department’s standard entrance screening, including metal detectors.
- When: the policy would take effect in January 2027. WBUR reported it would apply in dozens of courthouses starting January 1.
- Why: the Trial Court says it “reflects evolving best practices in courthouse security and supports the Commonwealth’s prohibition on firearms in courthouses under G.L. c. 269, § 10(k).”
- Delays: the court says it “recognizes the importance of efficient courthouse access” and “will evaluate operational measures to minimize delays.”
Right now, attorneys generally use a separate entrance without metal detectors, WBUR reported. A court spokesperson, Jennifer Donahue, called the change “a preventative measure intended to maintain safe, secure, and accessible courthouses for all who enter.” The Trial Court told WBUR the plan would apply to all attorneys but not to court personnel.
The gun law behind it
The statute the Trial Court cites, G.L. c. 269, § 10(k), makes it a crime to possess a firearm in a “prohibited area,” which includes any government building used for “judicial or court administrative proceedings,” including its grounds and parking areas. The penalty is a fine of up to $1,000, up to 2½ years in the house of correction, or both.
The law has limited exceptions. It does not apply to certified law enforcement officers, qualified retired officers under the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, or security guards working at the location. There is also a defense for a licensed gun owner who securely stores the gun in a vehicle under the state’s storage rules. Lawyers get no exemption. Being an attorney does not authorize anyone to carry a gun into a courthouse.
The statute also expressly preserves the authority of any “court of the commonwealth to adopt policies further restricting the possession of firearms in areas under their control.” That language is the legal footing for a screening policy like this one.
What the lawyers say
- Why only us? The private appointed counsel group wants to know why the rules appear to apply to private attorneys and not to courthouse staff, prosecutors, judges or law enforcement, WBUR reported. Its president, defense attorney Sean Delaney, said he would support better security “if it applied to everyone.” He also said the measure “falls short of what they’re looking to do unless they can explain a reason or that they’ve had a rash of attorneys going in with weapons.”
- The calendar. “It’s going to disrupt the orderly process by which the court goes through its calendar on a daily basis,” Delaney told WBUR. Court-appointed defense lawyers often cover several sessions or courthouses in one day.
- Character and fitness. “Every attorney has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, passed a character and fitness review, and remains under ethical and disciplinary oversight for the rest of their career,” the association said. The group says hundreds of attorneys are submitting comments against the plan.
- Officers already know us. In his Lawyers Weekly letter, Sudbury attorney Henry P. Sorett wrote that “in most courthouses, the court officers know almost all of the lawyers,” and that security staff already have discretion to screen anyone who raises suspicion. He proposed turning the Board of Bar Overseers card into an official photo ID with a bar code.
The other side
The National Center for State Courts recommends universal screening, meaning everyone from judges to defendants goes through the same security, WBUR reported. The organization also said it is not known how many states do this and that there is no comprehensive data on how added screening affects safety. The Trial Court has not publicly pointed to any specific incident involving an attorney.
How to comment before Wednesday
The Trial Court invites “attorneys, bar associations, and other stakeholders” to submit written comments on courthouse access, logistics and communication. The comment period runs from September 14 through October 14, 2026. Comments go by email to AttorneyScreeningComments@jud.state.ma.us, according to the notice.
If the policy is adopted, the practical effect for the public is mostly about timing. Lawyers who wait in the same line as everyone else at 8:30 a.m. may get to the courtroom later, and a day’s list can start late with them.
Frequently asked questions
Do lawyers have to go through metal detectors at Massachusetts courthouses?
Not generally, for now. Attorneys usually use a separate entrance. The Trial Court is considering a policy that would require all attorneys to go through standard screening, including metal detectors, starting in January 2027.
When is the deadline to comment on the attorney screening plan?
October 14, 2026. Written comments go to AttorneyScreeningComments@jud.state.ma.us.
Can anyone carry a gun into a Massachusetts courthouse?
Generally no. G.L. c. 269, section 10(k) makes it a crime to possess a firearm in a building used for court proceedings, including its grounds and parking areas, with limited exceptions for certified law enforcement officers, qualified retired officers and on-site security guards. Attorneys are not exempt.
Would judges and court staff be screened too?
The Trial Court told WBUR the proposal applies to all attorneys but not to court personnel. Opponents argue that the screening should apply to everyone or no one.
Sources: Massachusetts Trial Court, “Public Notice Inviting Comment on Massachusetts Trial Court Security Screening for Attorneys,” mass.gov, read in full; WBUR, October 12, 2026, including statements from the Massachusetts Association of Private Appointed Counsel, Sean Delaney and Trial Court spokesperson Jennifer Donahue; Henry P. Sorett, letter to the editor, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, October 12, 2026. G.L. c. 269, section 10(k) read at malegislature.gov. General information about Massachusetts law, not legal advice.