Public Policy > Our Policy Positions

BBA Public Policy

Public Policy Process: To make a public policy proposal for the BBA, fill out the BBA Public Policy Summary Sheet by clicking here. To learn more about the BBA's Public Policy procedures, click here.

Our Focus

Access to Justice

Access to justice means ensuring adequate funding for both civil legal services for the poor and for the courts, so that those who need to turn to the justice system to protect their rights or resolve their disputes will find the sufficient staff and resources to assist them.





Criminal Justice

The BBA believes that the primary concern of a criminal justice system should be promoting public safety and ensuring fair treatment for all citizens. In pursuit of this goal, the BBA has a long history of advocating for policies which are consistent, fiscally responsible and guarantee that the administration of justice in Massachusetts is impartial.



Civil Rights & Civil Liberties

The Massachusetts Constitution — the nation's first and oldest — stands as a beacon for fair and equal treatment under the law for every citizen. It is fitting, then, that the BBA has a long record of voicing opposition to and mobilizing resources against threats to civil rights and civil liberties. Our work in this area spans affirmative action, the right to vote, and same-sex marriage. It also includes the right to privacy, freedom of speech, the balance between liberty and security.

Children & Families

The BBA is attentive to legislative matters regarding the care, protection, and support of children, as well as other family-related legal issues. Our vibrant Family Law Section frequently concerns itself with procedural and administrative matters relating to the Probate and Family Court and maintains a continuing dialogue with its judges.



Practice of Law

The BBA inspires the vigorous pursuit of ideas, critical analysis and civic engagement in order to advance the practice of law as a business and a profession and has always worked to integrate opportunities for dynamic change and to exercise judgment and creativity in offering solutions for problems.



SJC Decides in Bird Case

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

SJC Decision in Bird Provides Reassurance & Protection for Fiduciaries Acting in Good Faith

Throughout the year, the Boston Bar Association (BBA) receives many proposals for amicus briefs. All proposals for BBA amicus briefs are fully vetted to determine what if any value the BBA's voice can add to the questions before the court. Extremely selective about weighing in with an amicus brief, the BBA takes pride in the quality of its briefs, all of which are drafted by dedicated volunteers. In today's decision by the Supreme Judicial Court inRachel A. Bird Anderson vs. BNY Mellon, N.A. trustee and others, the BBA is delighted to report that the SJC answered the questions posed by the BBA's amicus brief filed in this case. A BBA news release issued on May 1, 2012 illustrates the underlying problems inBird.

Amid controversy, confusion and uncertainty over the retroactivity of a 2009 amendment, the BBA amicus brief, filed on April 30, 2012 urged the SJC to answer two specific questions:

Is the retroactive application of Chapter 524 to instruments executed prior to 1958 constitutional?

If so, what are the consequences for actions taken by fiduciaries in reliance on Chapter 524 prior to the SJC's determination that such an application is constitutional?

In its BIRD decision released today the SJC provided the clarity and assurances the BBA was seeking:

"On balance, the retroactive application of the 2009 amendment to the plaintiff is not reasonable," says the decision. The decision goes on to provide even greater clarity:

"Although our discussion has focused on the factual situation before us, what we have said presumably applies to others who, like the plaintiff, have significant interests in pre-1958 trusts or other grants or devises, subject only to divestment by predeceasing an existing beneficiary or to dilution through the birth of others. Because of the uncertainty whether the 2009 amendment could constitutionally be applied retroactively, we think it is appropriate to clarify that our decision does not make unreasonable any distributions to adopted beneficiaries made in reliance on the 2009 amendment between July 1, 2010, and the date of this opinion, nor does it make unreasonable a trustee's declination to make such distributions. Although "[b]eneficiaries of a trust are entitled to the protection of the courts where there is a clear abuse of discretion or where the exercise of judgment by a fiduciary is clearly inconsistent with a due appreciation of his responsibilities as a fiduciary," McMahon v. Krapf, 323 Mass. 118, 124 (1948), in light of the uncertain state of the law, neither of the above- mentioned actions would be an abuse of discretion or clearly inconsistent with a trustee's responsibilities."

The BBA deeply appreciates the work of its Amicus Committee for bringing to light issues that have an impact on the entire bar.

The Boston Bar Association is a non-profit, voluntary membership organization of 10,000 attorneys drawn from private practice, corporations, government agencies, legal aid organizations, the courts, and law schools. It traces its origins to meetings convened by John Adams, the lawyer who provided pro bono representation to the British soldiers prosecuted for the Boston Massacre and went on to become the second president of the United States.
Back to All News
Want to see more of what we do? View the BBA's Public Policy Archive here.



As a well-known innovator and opinion leader, the BBA is at the forefront of promoting justice and improving access to the legal system in Massachusetts. The Business Litigation Session of the Superior Court, the Uniform Probate Code, and our successful argument asserting the First Amendment rights of private parties, including bar associations, found in the R.E.B.A. v. N.R.E.I.S amicus brief are just three of the positive changes we have helped make a reality.