Second Administrative Judicial Region
Verified judges, local rules, standing orders, and controlling division-assignment orders for Angelina County, Bastrop County, Brazos County, Burleson County, Chambers County, Grimes County, Hardin County, Jasper County, Jefferson County, Lee County, Liberty County, Madison County, Montgomery County, Newton County, Orange County, Polk County, San Jacinto County, Trinity County, Tyler County, Walker County, Waller County, Washington County — every entry cites its official source with a last-verified date.
Official site: https://www.mctx.org/departments/departments_a_-_c/county_courts/second_administrative_judical_region/index.php
203
judicial officers
16
published rules
22
counties
0
assignment orders
Rules by category
- Standing Orders9
- Local Rules4
- Administrative Orders1
- Divisional Instructions1
- Judge Preferences1
Source health (2 registered)
Counties in this circuit
Bench (203 judicial officers)
District judges
County-level judges
Justices of the peace
Associate judges, masters & magistrates
Titles shown as district judges, county-level judges (constitutional county courts, statutory county courts at law, probate courts), justices of the peace, and associate judges or masters per the Office of Court Administration roster and each court's own pages.
Recently verified rules
Search all rules →Standing Order Regarding Dockets Set Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a Dismissal Docket (“Drop” Docket) — Bastrop County District Courts and County Court at Law (signed Aug. 1, 2016)
Standing order of the 21st, 335th and 423rd District Courts and the County Court at Law of Bastrop County on the Rule 165a dismissal (“drop”) docket: each court pulls its own dismissal docket; a motion to retain does not remove a cause from the docket and must specifically allege good cause; parties and attorneys must appear on the docket date, which also serves as a status hearing for retained causes; the District Clerk keeps a master list.
159th and 217th District Courts — Standing Order on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Sept. 3, 2026)
Joint standing order of the 159th and 217th District Courts of Angelina County (Presiding Judges Todd L. Kassaw and Kristi C. Skillern, signed Sept. 3, 2026, filed Sept. 4, 2026): any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses Generative AI in work product, research, or drafting must include a prescribed sworn verification, in bold, in the pleading; a pleading that lacks it "will not be considered by the Court." The order prohibits AI-fabricated or misstated authority, entering sensitive confidential information into Generative AI, AI-created or AI-altered evidence, AI voice-recognition interpreters, experts relying on generative AI, and recording proceedings for AI analysis; violations are sanctionable after a show-cause hearing.
284th District Court — Standing Order on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Apr. 1, 2026)
Judge Kristin Bays's adoption of the same generative-AI standing order text for the 284th District Court: attorneys and self-represented litigants who use generative AI (the order names Google Gemini, ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Anthropic Claude, and AI-assisted research like Lexis+ and Westlaw Precision) in work product, research, or drafting MUST include a prescribed VERBATIM verification IN BOLD — swearing under penalty of perjury which AI programs were used, that the filer reviewed the ENTIRE pleading, that it contains no misstatements of law, misrepresented holdings, or improper citations, that it contains no sensitive or confidential information, and that no attached evidence was created, edited, enhanced, or altered by generative AI. A pleading using generative AI WITHOUT the verbatim bold verification WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. The order separately prohibits: filing pleadings that misstate law, misrepresent holdings, or cite non-existent cases; entering any case participant's sensitive, confidential information into a generative AI program; filing pleadings containing such information; offering evidence created/edited/enhanced/altered by generative AI in any contested hearing (oral or submission) or trial; using interpreters that rely on voice-recognition AI for document translation or live testimony; and using experts who rely on generative AI in their methodology or opinion formation. Violations draw a duly noticed show-cause hearing with all lawful sanctions on the table — expressly including death-penalty sanctions — plus possible orders to produce ALL invoices and time logs for the pleading (fraudulent-billing check), a requirement to attach highlighted copies of all cited case law to future pleadings, and referrals to disciplinary authorities (CPRC ch. 10, TRCP 13, Penal Code §§ 37.02, 37.09 grounds recited). The court binds itself too: no generative AI in drafting orders or on county equipment.
County Court at Law No. 6 — Standing Order on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Apr. 1, 2026)
Judge Scharlene W. Valdez's adoption of the same generative-AI standing order text for County Court at Law No. 6: attorneys and self-represented litigants who use generative AI (the order names Google Gemini, ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Anthropic Claude, and AI-assisted research like Lexis+ and Westlaw Precision) in work product, research, or drafting MUST include a prescribed VERBATIM verification IN BOLD — swearing under penalty of perjury which AI programs were used, that the filer reviewed the ENTIRE pleading, that it contains no misstatements of law, misrepresented holdings, or improper citations, that it contains no sensitive or confidential information, and that no attached evidence was created, edited, enhanced, or altered by generative AI. A pleading using generative AI WITHOUT the verbatim bold verification WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. The order separately prohibits: filing pleadings that misstate law, misrepresent holdings, or cite non-existent cases; entering any case participant's sensitive, confidential information into a generative AI program; filing pleadings containing such information; offering evidence created/edited/enhanced/altered by generative AI in any contested hearing (oral or submission) or trial; using interpreters that rely on voice-recognition AI for document translation or live testimony; and using experts who rely on generative AI in their methodology or opinion formation. Violations draw a duly noticed show-cause hearing with all lawful sanctions on the table — expressly including death-penalty sanctions — plus possible orders to produce ALL invoices and time logs for the pleading (fraudulent-billing check), a requirement to attach highlighted copies of all cited case law to future pleadings, and referrals to disciplinary authorities (CPRC ch. 10, TRCP 13, Penal Code §§ 37.02, 37.09 grounds recited). The court binds itself too: no generative AI in drafting orders or on county equipment.
457th District Court — Standing Order on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Apr. 1, 2026)
Judge Vincenzo J. Santini's standing order governing generative AI use in the 457th District Court: attorneys and self-represented litigants who use generative AI (the order names Google Gemini, ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Anthropic Claude, and AI-assisted research like Lexis+ and Westlaw Precision) in work product, research, or drafting MUST include a prescribed VERBATIM verification IN BOLD — swearing under penalty of perjury which AI programs were used, that the filer reviewed the ENTIRE pleading, that it contains no misstatements of law, misrepresented holdings, or improper citations, that it contains no sensitive or confidential information, and that no attached evidence was created, edited, enhanced, or altered by generative AI. A pleading using generative AI WITHOUT the verbatim bold verification WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. The order separately prohibits: filing pleadings that misstate law, misrepresent holdings, or cite non-existent cases; entering any case participant's sensitive, confidential information into a generative AI program; filing pleadings containing such information; offering evidence created/edited/enhanced/altered by generative AI in any contested hearing (oral or submission) or trial; using interpreters that rely on voice-recognition AI for document translation or live testimony; and using experts who rely on generative AI in their methodology or opinion formation. Violations draw a duly noticed show-cause hearing with all lawful sanctions on the table — expressly including death-penalty sanctions — plus possible orders to produce ALL invoices and time logs for the pleading (fraudulent-billing check), a requirement to attach highlighted copies of all cited case law to future pleadings, and referrals to disciplinary authorities (CPRC ch. 10, TRCP 13, Penal Code §§ 37.02, 37.09 grounds recited). The court binds itself too: no generative AI in drafting orders or on county equipment.
21st and 335th District Courts — Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (Burleson County edition)
The shared district AI standing order for the 21st and 335th District Courts as registered for Burleson County: before using any AI-generated information in a court submission, every attorney or self-represented litigant must sign and file a certification that all AI-created or AI-contributed language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments, and analysis were verified as accurate through traditional (non-AI) legal sources by a Texas-licensed attorney (a human being), acknowledging responsibility and possible sanction (Texas Disciplinary Rules, TRCP, CPRC ch. 10, the court's inherent power, or contempt) for noncompliance. The order recites that generative AI is currently unreliable, prone to bias, and prone to fabrication, and that its creators are not licensed, disciplinary-rule-bound attorneys.
21st and 335th District Courts — Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (Lee County edition)
The shared district AI standing order for the 21st and 335th District Courts as registered for Lee County: before using any AI-generated information in a court submission, every attorney or self-represented litigant must sign and file a certification that all AI-created or AI-contributed language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments, and analysis were verified as accurate through traditional (non-AI) legal sources by a Texas-licensed attorney (a human being), acknowledging responsibility and possible sanction (Texas Disciplinary Rules, TRCP, CPRC ch. 10, the court's inherent power, or contempt) for noncompliance. The order recites that generative AI is currently unreliable, prone to bias, and prone to fabrication, and that its creators are not licensed, disciplinary-rule-bound attorneys.
Local Rules of the Courts of Waller County, Texas — 506th Judicial District and Waller County Courts at Law
Local rules of the 506th District Court and the Waller County Courts at Law: application, jurisdiction and assignment of cases, filing and setting procedures, discovery and pre-trial requirements, trial settings and continuances, and court administration.
1st District Court (Jasper County) — Confidentiality Policy and Agreement (effective May 1, 2024)
Order of the 1st Judicial District Court adopting, under Supreme Court Misc. Docket No. 24-9006 and Rule of Judicial Administration 7.1, a court confidentiality policy and the agreement court personnel sign, effective May 1, 2024.
21st, 335th, 423rd and 465th District Courts (Bastrop County) — Standing Order Regarding and Adopting a Confidentiality Policy and Agreement (filed Jan. 16, 2025)
General standing order of the district courts sitting in Bastrop County adopting a court-employee confidentiality policy and agreement under Texas Rule of Judicial Administration 7.1: the duty of confidentiality, the Code of Judicial Conduct canons and Government Code §21.013 that underlie it, and the agreement court personnel sign.
Second Administrative Judicial Region of Texas — Regional Rules of Administration
The Regional Rules of Administration governing the district and statutory county courts of the Second Administrative Judicial Region of Texas (adopted 1995, effective January 3, 1996; amended 2007 and 2016). Eleven rules: case-disposition time standards (felonies 12 months, misdemeanors 6, civil jury 18 / non-jury 12, contested family 6 / uncontested 3, and the juvenile deadlines); the duty to supply docket information to the Regional Presiding Judge; the requirement that each county adopt conforming local rules for civil, family/juvenile and criminal dispositions and a jury plan; judicial-absence plans; the rule-with-respect-to-rules (numbering and Supreme-Court/Presiding-Judge approval for effectiveness); local court administration including recusal-referral procedure to the Presiding Judge (Rule 18a) and recording/broadcasting standards; conflicting engagements of attorneys; and the four-week attorney-vacation rule.
21st, 335th, 423rd, and 465th District Courts — Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (Bastrop County edition)
The shared district AI standing order for the 21st, 335th, 423rd, and 465th District Courts as registered for Bastrop County: before using any AI-generated information in a court submission, every attorney or self-represented litigant must sign and file a certification that all AI-created or AI-contributed language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments, and analysis were verified as accurate through traditional (non-AI) legal sources by a Texas-licensed attorney (a human being), acknowledging responsibility and possible sanction (Texas Disciplinary Rules, TRCP, CPRC ch. 10, the court's inherent power, or contempt) for noncompliance. The order recites that generative AI is currently unreliable, prone to bias, and prone to fabrication, and that its creators are not licensed, disciplinary-rule-bound attorneys.