US · rules
D. Mass. L.R. 40.2
Conflict of Court Appearances
(a) Order of Preference and Notice to Deputy Clerks. In situations where counsel, including
Assistant United States Attorneys, have conflicting court appearances among cases
pending before different judicial officers of this court, the following order of preference
shall apply, except as otherwise provided by law:
(1) Trials shall take precedence over all other hearings, and jury trials shall take
precedence over nonjury trials.
(2) Criminal cases shall take precedence over civil cases.
(3) Criminal cases involving defendants who are in custody pending trial in the
particular case shall take precedence over other criminal cases.
(4) Among civil cases or among criminal cases not involving defendants in custody,
the case having the earliest docket number shall take precedence over the others.
When such conflicts appear, the counsel involved shall notify the deputy clerk assigned to
each judicial officer concerned, in writing, not later than 7 days after the receipt of the
notice or calendar giving rise to such conflict. The notice shall contain the names and
docket number of each case, the time of the scheduled hearings in each case, the purpose
thereof, and advise which case has precedence and the reason therefor. Upon receipt of
such notice and a determination that a conflict in fact exists, the case or cases not having
precedence shall be rescheduled.
(b) Substitution of Counsel. Counsel, in lieu of giving a notice of conflict, may elect to have
a colleague, including another Assistant United States Attorney, handle the matter for the
counsel involved. This shall not apply to any appointed defense counsel in the trial of
criminal cases, unless the judicial officer orders otherwise.
(c) Primacy of Speedy Trial Plan. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this
rule and the provisions of the Speedy Trial Plan for the District of Massachusetts, the
Speedy Trial Plan shall control.
(d) Scheduling Policy Regarding Superior Court Cases. When counsel have engagement
conflicts with respect to cases pending in the Massachusetts Superior Court and this court,
the following scheduling policy shall apply:
(1) Trials shall take precedence over all other hearings.
(2) Jury trials shall take precedence over nonjury trials.
(3) Criminal cases shall take precedence over civil cases.
(4) Criminal cases involving defendants who are in custody pending trial shall take
precedence over other criminal cases.
(5) Among civil cases, or among criminal cases not involving defendants in custody,
the case having the earliest docket number shall take precedence over the others,
except that a trial setting involving numerous parties and counsel will ordinarily
take precedence over other trials.
Counsel shall notify the presiding Superior Court Justice and the judicial officer of the
scheduling conflict, in writing, not later than 7 days after the receipt of the scheduling order
giving rise to the conflict. Counsel’s notification shall include (1) the names and docket
numbers of each case, (2) the date and time of the scheduled proceedings in each case, and
(3) a brief statement as to which case has precedence under this policy. The case or cases
not having precedence shall be rescheduled, unless the presiding Superior Court Justice
and judicial officer agree otherwise.
History
Effective September 1, 1990; amended effective January 2, 1995; December 1, 2009.
Provenance
- Source
- www.mad.uscourts.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-18
- Edition
- fed-district-2026-09-18
- Content hash
1c48e25ca293e3a415722805cf2d3797e50f8f0c1bbf23bf3ddb1c6b8d333458
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.