Bindinglaw

US · rules

D. Mass. L.R. 40.2

Conflict of Court Appearances

activein force · 2009-12-01 – presentact-effective-date

(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
View the official source →

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.

Coverage · API docs

Bindinglaw

Point-in-time US law with the receipt attached. Source URL, retrieval time, content hash, and validity dates on every answer.

curl api.binding.law/v1/law/coverage

© 2026 binding.law · a Jubal, Inc. productAttorneys and firms never pay. Ever.
D. Mass. L.R. 40.2 — Conflict of Court Appearances · binding.law