Judge

Superior Court

Three Pemberton Square
Boston, MA 02108

Phone: (617) 788-8130

Judicial Biography

Born:

1953

Year admitted to bar:

1980

Year appointed/elected:

2001, by Gov. Jane M. Swift

Background

Education:

Boston University School of Law, 1980
Georgetown University, 1977

Professional

Legal Employment History:

Commissioner (2000-2001) and interim commissioner (1999-2000), Massachusetts Department of Social Services;
District attorney, Norfolk County (1997-1999);
Assistant U.S. attorney (1989-1997; deputy chief, New England Organized Crime Task Force, 1994-1997);
Assistant district attorney, Middlesex County (1980-1989);
Law clerk, Jameson, Locke & Fullerton, Wellesley (1979-1980).

Civic and Community Activities

Appointive or Elective Positions Held:

Member, Governor’s Commission on Youth Violence.

Honors:

Letter of commendation, Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Louis Freeh (1998);
Outstanding Performance Award, New England OCDETF Division;
Superior Performance Award, Department of Justice (1991).

Memberships/Affiliations:

Massachusetts Bar Association;
Norfolk County Bar Association;
Massachusetts District Attorneys’ Association;
National District Attorneys’ Association;
Board of Directors, Children’s Trust Fund;
President, Kid’s Fund;
Middlesex Club.

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:	2.0	3.2	3.0
Is receptive to requests for continuances:	2.0	2.9	2.9
Is receptive to lawyers’ requests for jury instructions and voir dire questions:	1.0	3.2	3.1
Presents easy-to-follow and legally sound instructions to jury:	1.0	3.3	3.2
Gives lawyers an opportunity to be heard prior to making legal findings and rulings:	1.8	3.2	3.1
Explains decisions in a manner that is clear to litigants and jurors:	1.5	3.2	3.0
Addresses the following with respect
a) litigants and witnesses:	2.0	3.4	3.2
b) lawyers:	1.8	3.2	3.0
c) court staff:	2.3	3.6	3.5
Attentiveness:	2.0	3.4	3.2
Timeliness of orders, judgments and decisions:	2.0	3.2	3.2
Demonstrates knowledge of substantive law and rules of evidence:	1.3	3.0	3.0
Quality of written decisions:	1.5	2.8	2.9
Shows willingness to ignore
a) irrelevant considerations:	1.5	3.0	2.9
c) identity of lawyers or parties:	1.7	3.3	3.0
d) public pressure or outside interests:	1.7	3.4	3.2
Has ability to maintain control of courtroom:	2.3	3.5	3.4
Starts session on schedule and on time:	3.0	3.4	3.2
Shows an appropriate degree of preparedness:	2.3	3.2	3.1
Average Overall Rating:	1.8	3.2	3.1

	% Yes Answer	averages for judges of this court	averages of all judges
Regularly keeps sessions past 4 p.m.:	0	23	26
Allows lawyers to lobby their cases in chambers:	0	47	47
Is rigid follower of court-mandated time standards:	50	39	45
Behaves differently when cameras are in the courtroom:	100	21	24

Comments

1) Be prepared for anything, for you never know what to expect.

2) Doesnt know civil procedure

Doesnt know substantive law

Pompous, arrogant, overbearing, and condescending

Is no more than 2% as smart as he thinks he is

Im not in a position to know how well he did his job as a Norfolk County District Attorney, but he doesnt know what hes doing in civil cases.

Closed-minded, makes decisions on the basis of his initial impression, and is unwilling to listen to arguments contrary to that impression–even when that impression is totally wrong.

Seems more concerned with his image jurist than with making a correct decision

3) Go before him with either a good, well-thought-out argument and be prepared to explain it, or go before him with a proposed resolution.

4) I was impressed with Judge Locke when I filed papers on short notice and he ordered a recess during the hearing to read the papers. I was also impressed with his insight into the emotional side of a case and ordered a sidebar to discuss possible mediation. I was not as impressed with Judge Lockes command of the law concerning the matter at issue and seemed more than willing to grant an injunction constituting a prior restraint on speech. Ultimately, he did not grant such an injunction, which is a testament to his willingness to consider the issues deeply.

Judicial Profiles

Locke, Jeffrey A.