Home / Judicial Profiles / Lenk, Barbara A. (retired)

Lenk, Barbara A. (retired)

Lenk

Image credit: Massachusetts Court System

Supreme Judicial Court

Adams Courthouse
Pemberton Square
Boston, MA 02108

Phone: (617) 725-8085


Judicial Biography

Born:

Dec. 2, 1950, New York City

Year admitted to bar:

1979

Year appointed/elected:

Elevated to SJC 2011, by Gov. Deval Patrick

Bench Service:

Superior Court (1993-1995); Appeals Court (1995-2011)

Pet Peeves

Other than being well prepared, I look for the following attributes in an attorney appearing before me:

“A recognition of what are and are not the significant issues – the ability to get to the real point – the ability to listen to the judge’s questions, discern and then respond to the court’s concerns.”

What displeases me the most is:

“Conduct which fails to be respectful – of the court and of fellow counsel – and conduct which is generally unprofessional.”

Background

Education:

Harvard Law School, J.D., 1979
Fordham University, B.A., 1972
Yale University, Ph.D., 1978, Political Philosophy

Publications:

Author (doctoral dissertation), “Foundations of American Civil Religion,” Yale University (1978);
Co-author with Haskell J. Freedman, “Massachusetts Divorce Law: Then and Now”, 25 Boston Bar Journal (1981);
Co-author with Donna Ducey, “Understanding the Relationship Between the First Amendment and Land Use: Newsracks, Creches, Parade Permits and Pamphlets” published in “Selected Issues and Current Constitutional Concerns in Land Use,” MCLE No. 91-19.05;
Book review of “Expert Witness” by Faust Rossi, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly (June 15, 1992);
Author, “What I Wish I Knew (or paid more attention to) While I Was Still Practicing Law,” 39 Boston Bar Journal (Jan./Feb. 1995).

Participation as a Faculty Member or Lecturer:

Faculty participant, MCLE Trial Advocacy Institute (1988-1992);
Panelist, MCLE Seminar on “Constitutional Issues in Land Use Planning” (1990);
Panelist, MCLE Litigation Basics Series (1991-1992).

Professional

Legal Employment History:

Associate and partner, Brown, Rudnick, Freed & Gesmer (1979-1993).

Civic and Community Activities

Memberships/Affiliations:

Boston Bar Association;
Volunteer Lawyers Project, Boston Bar Association;
Board of Editors, Boston Bar Journal (chairwoman, 1993-1996);
Women’s Bar Association;
Massachusetts Bar Association;
American Bar Association;
Chair, Board of Directors, Boston Bar Journal;
Fundraiser, Elizabeth Stone House Transitional Housing Project, Fund Raising;
Member, Friends of Pine Street Inn.

  • Reported Decisions
  • Other Links

Evaluations from Lawyers

4 = Excellent   3 = Good   2 = Fair   1 = Poor
  rating averages for judges of this court averages of all judges
Manages court time in a way that minimizes waiting around: 4.0 3.6 3.0
Is receptive to requests for continuances: 0.0 3.3 2.9
Is receptive to lawyers’ requests for jury instructions and voir dire questions: 0.0 3.5 3.1
Presents easy-to-follow and legally sound instructions to jury: 0.0 2.7 3.2
Gives lawyers an opportunity to be heard prior to making legal findings and rulings: 4.0 2.9 3.1
Explains decisions in a manner that is clear to litigants and jurors: 0.0 2.9 3.0
Addresses the following with respect      
a) litigants and witnesses: 0.0 3.5 3.2
b) lawyers: 4.0 3.4 3.0
c) court staff: 4.0 3.6 3.5
Attentiveness: 4.0 3.0 3.2
Timeliness of orders, judgments and decisions: 4.0 3.7 3.2
Demonstrates knowledge of substantive law and rules of evidence: 4.0 3.5 3.0
Quality of written decisions: 4.0 2.8 2.9
Shows willingness to ignore      
a) irrelevant considerations: 0.0 2.4 2.9
c) identity of lawyers or parties: 0.0 3.3 3.0
d) public pressure or outside interests: 0.0 2.3 3.2
Has ability to maintain control of courtroom: 0.0 3.5 3.4
Starts session on schedule and on time: 4.0 3.6 3.2
Shows an appropriate degree of preparedness: 4.0 3.1 3.1
Average Overall Rating: 2.1 3.2 3.1

 

  % Yes Answer averages for judges of this court averages of all judges
Regularly keeps sessions past 4 p.m.: 0 14 26
Allows lawyers to lobby their cases in chambers: 0 29 47
Is rigid follower of court-mandated time standards: 0 22 45
Behaves differently when cameras are in the courtroom: 0 0 24

 

Comments

1) Know your material; she will.

2) Outstanding ability to identify exactly what the issue is. Written decisions are among the clearest issued by the Court.



Leave a Reply