February 13, 2026

Letter: Probation’s sealing department lacks transparency, isn’t doing its job

BY Alyssa Golden, J. Swanger, Julie McCormack, & Susan MalouinMassachusetts Lawyers Weekly

To the editor:

CORI attorneys and advocates across the state were perplexed by the story about the Probation Service celebrating its purported revamping of the CORI sealing department (“Second chances,” Hearsay column, Jan. 26; “Probation Service speeds up process for sealing criminal records,” online). There is wide consensus among advocates who specialize in record clearance about the myriad issues we face trying to get Probation to process sealing petitions correctly and in a timely manner.

The time-based sealing process Probation referred to in the article is used to seal records after a waiting period and is purely administrative in nature. This means Probation has no discretion: It must seal all eligible records upon receipt of the petition. It also means that the petitioner has already waited many years to become eligible for this relief. In theory, the process is meant to be straightforward and user-friendly to ensure that those who are eligible to seal their records can promptly enjoy the benefits of doing so, just as the Legislature intended. In practice, Probation’s failures in its processing of petitions impede people’s ability to move forward with housing applications, employment opportunities, and other personal or professional goals. Probation’s shortcomings often require advocate intervention to ensure petitions are processed properly.

We have seen, for example, a concerning uptick in the number of petitions Probation claims never to have received. Because there is no online portal or user-facing system to track the status of these petitions — which can only be filed by mail — it is difficult to refute the oft-heard claim that a petition simply never made it to Probation’s office in Boston. However, CORI attorneys and advocates across the commonwealth know that this issue has become so commonplace — and seems to so uniquely plague the Probation office — that there is simply no way the U.S. Postal Service is misplacing this much mail.

It has long been an unfortunate reality that petitioners and advocates may never receive notice from Probation that a petition has been processed and a record sealed. However, advocates are now seeing an increase in cases where Probation fails to send sealing notices to courts after processing the petition. This is a critical step, as it is only once the courts receive this notice that they segregate the physical criminal court file and remove case information from MassCourts. Probation’s failure to complete the process results in continued improper access to information about sealed criminal cases. At times, Probation’s sealing notices are incomplete, resulting in the courts only sealing parts of these records and again requiring advocate intervention to identify the mistake and ensure Probation takes the steps to correct it.

Sadly, even when a petitioner or advocate does receive a complete and accurate sealing notice from Probation, it has become inadvisable to rely on the notice as evidence that a CORI has in fact been sealed. In numerous cases, advocates have found that Probation did not fully seal an eligible record, inexplicably leaving certain offenses visible on a CORI report even though they are statutorily eligible to be sealed. This makes subsequent CORI requests (which petitioners must pay for if they are not eligible for a fee waiver) not only a matter of best practice for advocates, but a necessity to ensure that Probation has provided a petitioner with the full relief to which they are statutorily entitled.

It can take weeks or months to get Probation to fix errors such as these. Community Legal Aid — the free civil legal aid provider for the residents of Central and Western Massachusetts — has had to file multiple certiorari actions in court against the Office of the Commissioner of Probation regarding its failure to seal eligible offenses based on its misinterpretations of plain statutory language. It is disconcerting that litigation was necessary for multiple reasons. Most concerning is that many petitioners file these petitions pro se and are much less likely to have the resources to challenge an erroneous denial in court. Secondly, it results in a diversion of resources, effectively squandering both legal aid and judicial resources as CORI advocates across the commonwealth attempt to clean up the mess.

Very recently, advocates have noticed a decrease in processing time for some petitions filed in the last several weeks. Unfortunately, this improvement is not as dramatic as Commissioner Ifill represented in the recent article, and in any event the shift is inconsistent, with advocates still fighting to get responses for sealing petitions filed in the spring and summer of 2025. Before a few months ago, attorneys and advocates were forced to advise petitioners that they could expect a waiting period of six months or more before Probation processed their petition.

While we are cautiously pleased to see shorter processing times for recently filed petitions and hope to continue seeing improvements to the sealing department’s efficacy, the article was premature in its celebration of a problem solved, which, in reality, remains but one issue among many in Probation’s opaque processes regarding petitions to seal time-eligible criminal records.

Alyssa Golden and J. Swanger
CORI/Reentry Unit, Community Legal Aid

Julie McCormack
Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School

Susan Malouin
Northeast Legal Aid