Douglas Salvesen, a former Chair of the Committee, argued the case on behalf of the Committee on December 5, 2025. The Boston Bar Association submitted an amicus brief on behalf of nine other organizations highlighting that the Rule 23 notice provision “is part of a well-considered, codified effort to ensure that residual funds from class action settlements are used for the common interest.” 

While the Court did not vacate the settlement at issue—which had been approved by the trial court and acted upon by the parties—the decision provides important clarity that “[c]ompliance with the rule is mandatory” and that failure to comply could be prejudicial. 

“We appreciate the Court’s clear reaffirmation of Rule 23’s requirements,” said Committee Chair Angela C. McConney. “We are hopeful that this ruling will serve as a strong reminder to counsel and trial courts of plaintiffs’ obligations when settling class actions.” 

Adds Jenna Miara, Executive Director of the Committee, “The IOLTA Committee is pleased with the Court’s decision. We’re confident it will increase compliance with Rule 23, ultimately benefitting civil legal services and access to justice in Massachusetts.”