Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Citation
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Parent Document
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 2004-01-07
Other Sections in This Document (29)
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
- Abdeljaber v. Gaddoura, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 294 (2004)
Full Text
1,560 charsAlthough S.J.C. Rule 3:09, Canon 3(B)(7), as appearing in 440 Mass. 1309 (2003), and effective October 1, 2003, was not applicable at the time of this dispute, we discuss it here to provide future guidance. Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states in part that a “judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider any ex parte communication . . . concerning a pending . . . proceeding, except that... [a] judge may consult with court personnel . . . whose function is to aid the judge in carrying out the judge’s adjudicative responsibilities.” Ibid. General Laws c. 185C, § 16, makes clear that housing specialists are such court personnel, appointed by the Housing Court, intended to aid in the performance of Housing Court duties. See LeBlanc v. Sherwin Williams Co., 406 Mass. at 896. Canon 3 further provides, however, “a judge *300shall take all reasonable steps to avoid receiving from court personnel . . . factual information concerning a case that is not part of the case record. If court personnel . . . nevertheless bring non-record information about a case to the judge’s attention, the judge may not base a decision on it without giving the parties notice of that information and a reasonable opportunity to respond” (emphasis added). S.J.C. Rule 3:09, Canon 3(B)(7)(c)(i). Here, the deployment of the housing specialist after the close of evidence, without notifying the parties, and consideration of the specialist’s report without providing the parties an opportunity to respond, would be inconsistent with the mandates of new Canon 3(B)(7).