Civil practice – Settlement – IOLTA committee

Listen to this article

Where the Massachusetts IOLTA Committee was not provided with notice of a class-action settlement until more than two years after the settlement’s final approval in Superior Court, the committee suffered no prejudice, as the record provides no basis to conclude that earlier notice would have altered the outcome.

Affirmed.

“This appeal presents a narrow but important question concerning the operation of Mass. R. Civ. P. 23(e), as amended, 471 Mass. 1491 (2015) (rule 23[e]): whether the failure to provide the Massachusetts IOLTA Committee (committee or IOLTA committee) with notice and an opportunity to be heard before approval of a class action settlement, assuming the committee was entitled to notice, requires that the settlement approval and resulting judgment be set aside. The committee, which was not a party to the underlying litigation, received notice of the class action settlement in this matter for the first time more than two years after the settlement’s final approval in the Superior Court. After receiving notice, the committee opposed the parties’ joint motion for an order approving the final distribution of unclaimed settlement funds, arguing that the settlement had been approved without timely notice under rule 23(e). The motion judge allowed the parties’ joint motion and entered a final judgment of dismissal in accordance with the settlement.

“On appeal, the committee contends that the absence of timely notice compels vacatur of the judgment and order approving the settlement, as well as renewed proceedings concerning disposition of any residual funds. The committee also raises arguments attacking the circumstances and terms of the settlement itself. The parties respond that, among other things, the committee lacks standing to raise these additional arguments challenging the settlement.

“We conclude that the committee has standing to appeal from the alleged denial of the procedural entitlement conferred on the committee by rule 23(e)(3): namely, timely notice and an opportunity to be heard on whether it should receive residual funds. The committee lacks standing, however, to contest the settlement’s over-all fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy, or otherwise attack the validity of its terms. Assuming, without deciding, the approval of the settlement violated rule 23(e)(3), we conclude that the committee suffered no prejudice. The committee ultimately received the process that rule 23(e)(3) guarantees — an opportunity to be heard as a potential recipient of any residual funds — and the record provides no basis to conclude that earlier notice would have altered the outcome. The violation therefore does not warrant vacating the judgment or the settlement approval. We affirm. …

“The IOLTA Committee has standing to appeal from the failure to provide notice required by Mass. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(3), but it lacks standing to challenge the settlement’s over-all fairness or structure. Assuming the rule was violated, there was no prejudice on this record. That conclusion reflects the procedural posture: the committee ultimately received a full opportunity to be heard on whether it ought to be a recipient of any or all residual funds.

“Our decision should not be read to suggest that delayed notice to the committee is never prejudicial, particularly where the absence of timely participation prevents the court from addressing the treatment of potential residual funds at the settlement-approval stage. Nor does our conclusion that no prejudice occurred here dilute the rule’s requirements or permit disregard of its notice provisions. Compliance with rule 23(e)(3) is mandatory. … In furtherance of this requirement, trial courts should address rule 23(e)(3) expressly at the settlement-approval stage, confirming compliance with that rule before approving a settlement or entering judgment.”

Ortins, et al. v. Lincoln Property Company, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-038-26) (19 pages) (Georges, J.) A motion for certification and approval of a class action settlement was heard by John T. Lu, J., and a motion for an order approving final distribution of unclaimed settlement funds was heard by Janice W. Howe, J., in Superior Court. Douglas W. Salvesen (Jenna Miara also present) for Massachusetts IOLTA Committee; Jeffrey C. Turk for the defendants; Orestes G. Brown (Bailey Buchanan also present) for the plaintiffs; Christopher E. Hart, John Froio, Jacquelynne J. Bowman, Georgia D. Katsoulomitis, Richard Vitali, Elizabeth A. Soule, Jayne Tyrrell, Shennan Kavanagh and Anita P. Sharma submitted a brief for Boston Bar Association and others, amici curiae (Docket No. SJC-13777) (April 14, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.