Probate & Family Court Standing Order 3-25:
A New Building Block in the Court’s Effort To Fortify a Sturdy Foundation for the Administration of Justice

As we usher in August, pro se litigants and attorneys alike should be mindful of “Probate and Family Court Standing Order 3-25: Trial Completion”—which went into effect as of July 1, 2025—as it is an important and most welcome addition to the trial court’s governance.

Background

By way of background, let’s consider what a Standing Order is and how it applies systemically. In short, a Standing Order issued by the Probate and Family Court is a written order that applies to each and every Probate and Family Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Unless or until a Standing Order is modified or rescinded by the Probate and Family Court, the far-reaching Standing Order impacting all family law matters remains in effect.

Why Was a Change Needed?

Over the years, litigants have long been immeasurably disadvantaged by the systemic, haphazard, chaotic infrastructure that amounted to “justice delayed is justice denied. (1)” As litigants, trial attorneys, judges, and court personnel would readily attest, the reality of what can happen in Probate and Family Court during the pendency of a trial is that there are all too often gaps of days, weeks, or even months in-between trial dates. Not only does this lead to incalculable frustration for all concerned, but the benefit of a litigant being able to bring forth before the court a timely and cohesive presentation of their case is severely restricted and compromised. After all, over the course of intervening weeks or months, how could a trial judge reasonably be expected to recall certain details and nuances of the case that could well impact their ultimate orders? Adding to the frustrations for one and all is the reality that it is not atypical for case files to be waylaid, for a different judge to be assigned to the matter, or for key trial information—such as business or real estate valuations—to become stale.

Recognizing these shortcomings and limitations, the rationale that prompted the promulgation of Standing Order 3-25 is part of the ongoing efforts of the Probate and Family

Court to evaluate what is and what is not working in the system, what practical changes are vital, and then fashioning workable solutions for the benefit of litigants, counsel, judges, and court personnel.

Reading Between the Lines of Standing Order 3-25

Everyone involved in the court system is all too aware of the gamesmanship and dilatory tactics that really amount to foul play. For example, some trial attorneys seek to gain the upper hand in the litigation by fragmenting the trial proceedings in such a way that undermines opposing counsel’s ability to put forth their best case. Another common happenstance occurs when an attorney represents a client who has withered under cross-examination and appeared not to be credible; the hope may be that, over time, the judge will not recall the negative impression left by their client and the attorney can use the delayed time to rehabilitate the litigant’s image. Since legal fees and costs can escalate unnecessarily due to a trial’s fits and starts, if maintaining the status quo benefits an attorney’s client (or enriches the attorney), then why seek to hasten the process along?

How Standing Order 3-25 Redresses Inefficiency and Unfairness

With the overarching goal of improving systemic “efficiency and fairness” while diminishing chicanery, the emphasis has now decidedly shifted away from the delayed administration of justice, and towards a structured framework for trials scheduled in such a way that they commence and conclude within a time period that minimizes such delay,

If there is a trial matter starting on or after the effective date of the Standing Order – July 1, 2025, then Standing Order 3-25 will have an immediate impact on how that trial is scheduled and governed. And, just to anticipatorily head-off any ancillary sources of confusion, of note, the Standing Order overrides any contradictory provisions in other Standing Orders (e.g., Standing Order 1-06: Case Management and Time Standards for Cases Filed in the Probate and Family Court).

The key provisions and corresponding redress in the Standing Order are as follows:

• Efficiency: Gaps between assigned trial dates are foreshortened to avoid lengthy delays so that trials are completed “within a reasonable time” once the trial begins
• Scheduling: Standing Order 3-25 mandates that trial days be scheduled sequentially (or, as reasonably close to consecutive days as the trial judge’s calendar can accommodate)
• Prioritizing: In the event a trial is not completed within the original calendar dates allotted, litigants and their counsel must prioritize the judge’s schedule over any conflicting calendar commitments on their respective schedules
• 30-day Rule: If the trial does not conclude within the originally allotted time, then the earliest available date(s) within 30 calendar days from the last scheduled trial date must be assigned
• Preemption: With the exception of certain scheduled motions, contempts, and pre-trials, if there are no dates that fall within the “30-days rule” involving trials that are scheduled but not yet commenced, then those nascent trials are to be rescheduled to a later date on the judge’s calendar
• Accurate estimate of trial duration—It is the duty of pro se litigants and attorneys of record to provide the court with good faith and accurate estimations of the requisite time for either trial completion or trial extension. Notwithstanding that input, the judge may impose a limitation on the number of requested trial days – “within the confines of due process …to ensure a timely and fair” trial—and, once the judge has made that determination, litigants and counsel must all adhere to those limitations.

In short, the clearly articulated directives detailed in Standing Order 3-25 promise to be not just a small step but a giant leap forward in the courts’ ongoing quest for the fair administration of justice.

(1) This legal maxim is said to have been coined in 1868 by former United Kingdom Prime Minister William Gladstone and referenced in 1963 by Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail.”