Tag Archives: public policy

More Relief for Consumers

More good news! An update increasing the dollar amounts for bankruptcy exemptions in Massachusetts made its way to the Governor Patrick’s desk just before New Years Eve. Even though January 5th marked the end of the 2009-2010 session, the governor still has 10 full days to act on the bills on his desk.  Any bill that goes without action for more than 10 days will receive a so-called pocket veto.  Today is day 7.

As Issue Spot noted just weeks ago, personal property exemptions have long been in desperate need of modernization.  According to the Massachusetts statute, MGL Chapter 235, section 34 —last updated more than 30 years ago — the intent of the original law was to balance the legal rights of creditors against a debtor’s need for basic necessities in order to maintain a home and earn a living. 

The present law exempts from seizure things like 2 cows, 12 sheep, 2 swine and 4 tons of hay, and this is almost laughable in the context of how most people earn their livings or look for employment in 2011. Updating this law would increase the value of property, earnings and savings exempt from seizure during debt collection, and also permit debtors to keep computers. As families and communities continue to struggle with the impact of the economic downturn, the process of debt collection needs to change to one that is fair, at the same time facilitating the ability of debtors to fulfill their obligations.

The BBA had filed a bill several years ago that would update exemptions. Not surprisingly many bankruptcy attorneys eventually came to view the dollar amounts in that original bill as obsolete. During the summer of 2010 the BBA’s Bankruptcy Public Policy Committee identified key exemptions in our draft that could be revised to better reflect the needs of today’s household.  It was their work this summer which really brought this issue into focus for us and kept it on our radar in the final days of session. 

The BBA’s Bankruptcy Public Policy Committee had urged us to work with the National Consumer Law Center, and to adopt the exemption amounts that were in the NCLC’s bill.  As we revised our own bill we learned that the NCLC’s bill had already made enormous progress.  Working with NCLC on this issue proved to be successful. 

-Kathleen Joyce

Government Relations Director

Boston Bar Association

comments are disabled for this blog. If you have a comment you wish to share e-mail issuespot@bostonbar.org

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

BBA Comments to the Courts

In the spirit of celebrating the accomplishments of the program year that will soon draw to a close (Sept. 1 – Aug. 31), the BBA would like to highlight the work of its members in making an impact on the SJC rulemaking process.  The BBA regularly comments on proposed amendments and rules changes, creates task forces to study and help solve critical issues of interest to the Commonwealth, and also articulates its public policy positions through the filing of amicus briefs.

In this past program year, our membership has actively addressed several important issues in the Commonwealth’s courts. 

Rule 4:03

Periodic Assessment of Attorneys

In December of 2008, the BBA’s Delivery of Legal Services Section helped garner the BBA’s support of the Access to Justice Commission’s proposal to the Supreme Judicial Court that it amend Rule 4:03 “Periodic Assessment of Attorneys” by adding to the annual registration fee a contribution of $50 to support civil legal services.  The contribution would be voluntary and the attorney registrant could opt-out of the contribution.  This Spring the SJC agreed and approved the Access to Justice Commission’s proposal to include an optional registration fee.  In fact the court increased the contribution amount to $51

The BBA has always been and will continue to be a strong advocate for ensuring that everyone has equal access to justice, and funding for civil legal services is a key component to making this a reality. 

Look for this change in your annual registration form starting September 1, 2010.

Rule 3:01 and New Rule VI of the Board of Bar Examiners

Foreign Attorney Admission

The BBA’s diverse membership includes many lawyers whose educational and professional backgrounds span the globe.  In 2006, the BBA convened The Study Group of Foreign Attorney Admission to examine Massachusetts’ admission requirements for foreign-trained attorneys.  After careful study, this Group developed recommendations reflecting proposed guidance derived from two Supreme Judicial Court cases, Wei Jia v. Board of Bar Examiners (1998) and Osakwe v. Board of Bar Examiners (2006).  The BBA believes that the key criteria for eligibility to take the Massachusetts bar exam should be legal education requirements, including both general education in common law and particular education in American law.

The SJC invited comments on the changes and the BBA, with help from its International Law Section, submitted comments requesting that Rule 3:01 and New Rule VI provide greater clarity and transparency in the rules, and better consistency by the Board of Bar Examiners in its application of them.  Happily the SJC approved the amendments to both rules.  These changes became effective July 1, 2010.

Standing Order 1:09

Sealing of Criminal Cases

Last year, the BBA voted to support a proposed interdepartmental order to Chief Justice Charles Johnson of the Boston Municipal Court.  The proposal came from one of our oldest partners, Greater Boston Legal Services.  The interdepartmental order would permit individuals to seek in one court the sealing of criminal cases that have been disposed of in other courts.  The previous process for sealing a criminal record could be cumbersome when an individual had several cases in different divisions of the trial court.  Not only did an individual need to travel to each court, but because the previous statute required two hearings before any individual motion to seal was blocked, it was necessary to travel to each court twice.

Chief Justice Johnson agreed to implement this innovative approach to case management.  He signed Standing Order 1:09 in May 2009 as a one-year pilot project.  This past winter, at the urging of our Delivery of Legal Services Section, the BBA requested that the standing order be extended for another year.  Chief Justice Johnson agreed and extended the order through May 14, 2011.

– Kathleen M. Joyce

Government Relations Director

Boston Bar Association

Comments are disabled for this blog. Please send your comments to issuespot@bostonbar.org

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized