Senior Counsel Neal Quenzer recently published an article on party-funded amicus briefs in the Boston Bar Journal. In the article, Quenzer, discusses the court's general approach toward amici, restrictions on amicus practice, requirements of Mass. R.A.P.17, H1 Lincoln and the pros and cons of party-funded amicus briefs.
Excerpt: Earlier this year, in H1 Lincoln, Inc. v. South Washington Street, LLC, 489 Mass. 1 (2022), the Supreme Judicial Court was faced with an interesting question concerning amicus practice: how should the court treat an amicus brief that has been paid for by one of the parties to the appeal?
This is a novel question in Massachusetts. The court sent the question to its standing advisory committee on the Rules of Appellate Procedure for consideration. This article examines the backdrop against which this question arises and what the possible answers might mean for Massachusetts amicus practice.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
