Takiyah D. White, pro se., Robert L. Quinan, Jr., Assistant Attorney General,
for the respondent., **1022*964The petitioner, Takiyah D. White, raises allegations
of misconduct by an assistant clerk-magistrate of the Boston Municipal Court, who
presided over a small claims proceeding to which White was a party. She further
alleges that her efforts to lodge a complaint about the alleged misconduct were
flatly refused by court staff.1 White subsequently raised her concerns with the
respondent, the Chief Justice of the Boston Municipal Court, in a document entitled,
"Petition for Removal: Clerk-Magistrate." The Chief Justice responded with a letter
in which he "decline[d] to exercise [his] authority to pursue th[e] matter further
or to grant the relief [sought]."2, White then sought relief in the county court,
by filing a document entitled, "Abuse of Authority: Judicial Misconduct," which
she later amended in two documents she referred to as "amended complaints." The
single justice denied **1023relief, treating the filings as a petition for extraordinary
relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, and later denied a motion for reconsideration.
Although we affirm the single justice's judgment denying relief under G. L. c.
211, § 3, we take this opportunity to clarify the process for lodging complaints
against clerks and assistant clerks pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 3:13, as appearing in
471 Mass. 1301 (2015).3, "In recognition of the vital function played by clerk-magistrates
in promoting public trust in the judicial system, this court promulgated the [Code
of Professional Responsibility for Clerks of the Courts, S.J.C. Rule 3:12, as amended,
427 Mass. 1322 (1998) (code) ], to establish the 'high standards' governing the
'norms of conduct and practice' associated with the clerk's office." Matter of
Powers, 465 Mass. at 68-69, 987 N.E.2d 569, quoting State Bd. of Retirement v. Bulger,
446 Mass. 169, 177-178, 843 N.E.2d 603 (2006). This code also governs the conduct
of assistant clerk-magistrates. See S.J.C. Rule 3:12, Canon 1 (2013)., 2. The process
for complaints involving clerks and assistant clerks. Complaints against clerks
and assistant clerks are governed by S.J.C. Rule 3:13, as appearing in 471 Mass.
1301 (2015). Subsection (1) of the rule contemplates that individuals, presumably
including members of the public served by the courts, may lodge "[c]omplaints against
a court Clerk, Clerk Magistrate, Register or Recorder (hereinafter Clerk), and against
an Assistant Clerk, Assistant Clerk-Magistrate, Assistant Register, Deputy Recorder,
Judicial Case Manager, **1024and Assistant Judicial Case Manager (hereinafter Assistant
Clerk)." The rule then lists the broad categories of complaints that are covered
by the rule, including, among other things, "any conduct that constitutes a violation
of [the code appearing at] S.J.C. Rule 3:12.", Once a complaint is lodged, the process
differs for clerks and assistant clerks. Under S.J.C. Rule 3:13 (2), complaints
involving Trial Court clerks "shall be referred to their respective Chief Justice
who shall investigate and impose discipline as appropriate," subject to subsection
(4) of the rule, which describes the role of the Trial Court Committee on Professional
Responsibility for Clerks of the Courts in adjudicating appeals by a clerk from
discipline imposed by a Trial Court chief justice, or in adjudicating in the first
instance complaints referred to the committee by a Trial Court chief justice., With
respect to assistant clerks, such as the assistant clerk-magistrate who presided
over White's small claims matter, S.J.C. Rule 3:13 (3) provides that "[c]omplaints
shall be governed by the provisions of the Trial Court Personnel Policies and Procedures
Manual [ (Jan. 7, 2013) (manual) ]."4 To date, the manual does not contain any process
specific to complaints by a member of the public against a clerk or assistant clerk
for violations of the code of professional responsibility. Instead, by default,
such matters appear to be governed *966by the general provisions on "rules and discipline"
contained in section 16.000 of the manual. As pertinent here, section 16.200 of
the manual states:, The procedures for formal disciplinary proceedings are set forth
in subsequent sections of the manual., Notably, beyond the implied right of a member
of the public to lodge a complaint, S.J.C. Rule 3:13 does not create any private
right for an individual to enforce the code or to compel a trial court to investigate
a complaint, as White attempts to do here. See Gorbatova v. First Assistant Clerk
of the Supreme Judicial Court for the County of Suffolk, 463 Mass. 1019, 1019, 979
N.E.2d 208 (2012) (holding that there is "no right to bring a private action in
court to obtain discipline of a clerk").6 Thus, a private individual like White
may lodge a complaint against a clerk or assistant clerk, but he or she does not
thereby become a party to the disciplinary process and, significantly, has no standing
to prosecute a court action **1025to compel the discipline.7, Moreover, nowhere
in S.J.C. Rule 3:13 (or in the manual) is a member of the public informed how to
lodge a complaint against a clerk or assistant clerk. Indeed, this lack of guidance
appears to have caused substantial confusion and frustration in this case, and understandably
so. In our view, S.J.C. Rule 3:13 contemplates that an individual may lodge a complaint
by sending a letter to the chief justice or to the clerk of the particular court
involved, to the Chief Justice of the Trial Court, or to the Court Administrator.8
At that point, complaints involving clerks "shall be referred to their respective
Chief Justice" for review, while complaints involving assistant clerks "shall be
governed by the provisions of [the manual]." S.J.C. Rule 3:13 (2), (3). Under the
current version of the manual, complaints against an assistant clerk would be referred
to the *967clerk of the relevant court (or a designee) for review and investigation.,
3. Referral to the Committee on Professional Responsibility for Clerks of the Courts.
The 2015 amendments to S.J.C. Rule 3:13 brought about a significant change in the
manner in which complaints against clerks and assistant clerks are processed. As
we approach the five-year anniversary of that rule change, it is appropriate to
take stock of whether, in practice, the rule is fulfilling the needs of the court
system and the public that it serves. We therefore ask the Chief Justice of the
Trial Court and the Court Administrator, as the permanent members of the Committee
on Professional Responsibility for Clerks of the Courts, to review S.J.C. Rule 3:13,
in consultation with designated court clerks, and to propose any amendments that
they deem appropriate. In particular, we ask them to consider whether the rule provides
adequate instruction to members of the public about how to lodge a complaint --
including whether the creation of a standard form would assist in clarifying the
process -- and whether the rule should establish baseline requirements for providing
notice to such individuals about the disposition of their complaint. We ask the
Chief Justice and Court Administrator to report on their review to the Supreme Judicial
Court Rules Committee no later than December 31, 2019., 4. Review under G. L. c.
211, § 3. "We review a decision of the single justice denying relief under G. L.
c. 211, § 3, only for 'clear error of law or abuse of discretion.' " Commonwealth
v. Bertini, 466 Mass. 131, 137, 993 N.E.2d 654 (2013), quoting Caggiano v. Commonwealth,
406 Mass. 1004, 1005, 550 N.E.2d 389 (1990). As discussed supra, White lacks standing
"to bring a private action in court to obtain discipline of a clerk." Gorbatova,
463 Mass. at 1019, 979 N.E.2d 208. Procedurally speaking, it is of little import
"how the [complaint] was framed or how it was treated by the single justice." Matter
of a Request for an Investigation of an Attorney, 449 Mass. 1013, 1014, 867 N.E.2d
323 (2007). The determinative point is that "[t]here is no private right to operate
the disciplinary process." Gorbatova, supra at 1020, 979 N.E.2d 208. See **1026Matter
of the Petition of Smallwood, 470 Mass. 1018, 1019, 21 N.E.3d 545 (holding that
there is "no private right of action to obtain discipline of a judge"); Matter of
a Request for an Investigation of an Attorney, supra (holding that there is no private
right of action to obtain discipline of attorney)., In her brief, White alleges
that she was informed by a supervisor that "you can't file a complaint against
a Clerk-Magistrate" (emphasis added). It is unclear whether this statement, if made,
was intended as a refusal to "docket" the complaint in the small claims matter or
an outright refusal to accept and process the complaint. In any event, White appears
to have left the court house under the impression that there was no process in place
for submitting such a complaint.