Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Guide And File Returns topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
JCIT subcommittees to drill into "judge's request" returns and local‑rule variability for Guide & File
Summary
Committee members flagged a high volume of Guide & File rejections coded as "judge's request" and asked the Standards Committee to drill down on causes; a joint meeting with Access to Justice was proposed to reduce returns and improve pro se filings.
JCIT members raised concerns that many Guide & File submissions for pro se litigants are returned for correction with the broad reason code "judge's request," a label the committee said is too vague for filers and may hide local‑rule or clerk‑driven rejections.
Evan and other staff presented data showing steady return‑for‑correction rates and that the largest volume of Guide & File returns is for divorce and eviction case types. Committee members said the "judge's request" category often masks specific deficiencies — missing required forms, incorrect formatting, or local rule requirements — and that pro se users receive insufficient guidance when a filing is returned.
"We should add categories that actually capture what the problem is and not use the term judge's request," one committee member said, urging clearer rejection reasons so filers can correct mistakes. The committee agreed to ask the Standards Committee to examine splitting out "judge's request" into more specific return codes and to convene a joint meeting with the Access to Justice group to align clerk practices and Guide & File interview content.
Justice Clinton and others volunteered to participate; staff said they would schedule the joint meeting and that committee chairs would invite access to justice partners and local clerks for targeted education. The Standards Committee will review the existing return‑for‑correction codes and recommend more granular reasons and clerk guidance.
