Loading…
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.
Texas > Second Administrative Judicial Region > Bastrop County > 21st, 335th, 423rd and 465th District Courts.
21ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT AND 335TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURTS OF BASTROP, BURLESON, LEE AND WASHINGTON COUNTY AND 423RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AND 465TH DISTRICT COURTS OF BASTROP COUNTY, TEXAS GENERAL ORDERS STANDING ORDER REGARDING AND ADOPTING A CONFIDENTIALITY POLICY AND AGREEMENT Employees of these Courts occupy positions of public trust. In the course of your duties, you will encounter confidential information about the prospective disposition of cases and the inner workings of the Court. Preserving the confidentiality of the Court's documents and private deliberations is crucial to the Court's work. More specifically, confidentiality furthers the ability of judges and judicial staff to communicate openly and honestly and to reach the most legally correct outcomes for litigants. Confidentiality also builds public respect for the judiciary and impresses on others the gravity of the judicial process. Any breach of confidentiality would betray not only the Court and the individuals who work here, but also the public's interest in thorough, considered justice. Confidentiality has long been an expectation within Texas courts. Canon 3B(10) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct demands that judges and court staff refrain from "public comment about a pending or impending proceeding which may come before the judge's court." Canon 3B(11) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct provides that "[t]he discussions, votes, positions taken, and writings of appellate judges and court personnel about causes are confidences of the court and shall be revealed only through a court's judgment, a written opinion or in accordance with Supreme Court guidelines for a court approved history project." Texas Government Code Section 21.013 creates a Class A misdemeanor criminal offense for the unauthorized disclosure of non-public judicial work product, stating "[a] person . . . with access to non-public judicial work product commits an offense if the person knowingly discloses, wholly or partly, the contents of any non-public judicial work product . . . ." Additionally, Texas Penal Code Section 39.06 criminalizes the misuse of official information by a public servant who "discloses or uses information for a nongovernmental purpose that: (1) he has access to by means of his office or employment; and (2) has not been made public", with penalties ranging from a Class C misdemeanor to a felony of the third degree. [File stamp on page 1: Filed 2:05 Pm JAN 16 2025, Sarah Loucks, District Clerk, Bastrop County] This confidentiality policy incorporates the Canons as well as the statutory penalties of both Texas Government Code Section 21.013 and Texas Penal Code Section 39.06. This policy applies to all Court staff, including interns. 1) Protection of information. Confidential information must not be shared with persons not employed within the Court, except as provided in Section 3 below. Employees must refrain from commenting about cases that are or may come before the Court to family, friends, or acquaintances. 2) Confidential information defined. Confidential information includes: a) drafts of opinions not yet released, internal memoranda, emails between judges or staff, and any other document not intended for public use; b) conversations between judges or court staff about litigants or cases before, previously before, or expected to come before the Court; c) the private views of judges or court staff concerning the disposition of cases, litigants, anticipated cases, or each other; d) the authorship of per curiam opinions or orders, the timing of opinion or order release, and any other procedural mechanism not ordinarily public; e) documents properly filed under seal by litigants or counsel; and f) other information, however communicated, that is not authorized to be made public. 3. Disclosures of confidential information. a) Intentional disclosure of confidential information outside of the boundaries of (1) above may be met with maximum disciplinary action. See (5) below. b) Negligent or accidental disclosure is an extremely serious matter that may, but will not necessarily, be met with penalties as described in (5) below. Employees who accidentally disclose confidential information have a duty to promptly report the disclosure to their supervisor, appointing authority, or human resources department so that mitigation can be attempted. Employees are expected to exercise their discretion and judgment to minimize the risk of inadvertent disclosure. For example, employees should refrain from communicating about sensitive matters in crowded or public spaces where others may overhear, even within the public areas of the Court. Employees should use court-issued, password-protected equipment to transmit confidential documents. Employees should be mindful of who can see their screen when working at home, on aircraft, public transit, or in public spaces. Employees should carefully keep track of and password protect electronic devices containing confidential information and immediately report any loss or theft of those devices. c) Authorized disclosure occurs when the Judge who supervises the employee authorizes the employee to share work product with a specific person or organization. For example, employees may be authorized to share draft rules or administrative orders with other judicial branch entities for review and comment before they are released to the public, and the Clerk of Court may be authorized to disclose information relating to case status as part of their job duties, provided the Court's internal, confidential deliberations are not disclosed. d) Disclosure as necessary to report misconduct or illegal acts is permitted. Employees may disclose confidential information when such disclosure is necessary to adequately report to an appropriate authority the misconduct or illegal acts of any person, including sexual or other forms of harassment. 4. Continuing confidentiality obligation. An employee's duty to preserve confidentiality survives the employee's departure from the Court. An employee who leaves the Court has the same ongoing duty to protect confidential information that they had during their employment. Further, the duty to protect information related to the disposition of cases, such as the substance of the Court's deliberations, persists even after an opinion or order is publicly released. Employees asked about a decision of the Court should offer no comment beyond a referral to the released opinion or order. Finally, employees who depart from Court employment may not retain confidential materials. Employees should return or securely dispose of materials, such as in designated Court shredding bins, prior to an anticipated departure, or as soon as possible after an unanticipated departure. 5. Penalties for unauthorized disclosure: In the event of an unauthorized disclosure of confidential information, the Court will investigate the circumstances and take appropriate disciplinary action, as necessary. Potential disciplinary actions may include but are not limited to: a) referral of the matter to the relevant law enforcement agency for investigation and prosecution. See Texas Government Code Section 21.013 and Texas Penal Code Section 39.06; b) termination of employment; c) for attorneys, referral to the State Bar of Texas or of other states for discipline and possible loss of the privilege to practice before Texas or other courts; and d) for law students, referral to the Texas Board of Law Examiners for consideration in determining eligibility to practice law. This Order becomes effective immediately upon execution of the same by all the Judges identified below and supersedes any previous orders affecting these matters. ADOPTED AND EFFECTIVE this 15th [handwritten] day of January [handwritten], 2025 [handwritten]. [signature] Judge Carson T. Campbell, 21ST District Court [signature] Judge John D. Winkelmann, 335TH District Court [signature] Judge Christopher D. Duggan, 423rd District Court [signature] Judge Elizabeth F. Beyer, 465th District Court [File stamp on page 4: Filed 2:05 Pm JAN 16 2025, Sarah Loucks, District Clerk, Bastrop County] [Running footer: Standing Order for the District Courts Confidentiality 7-1-24]
21ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT AND 335TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURTS OF BASTROP, BURLESON, LEE AND WASHINGTON COUNTY AND 423RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AND 465TH DISTRICT COURTS OF BASTROP COUNTY, TEXAS GENERAL ORDERS STANDING ORDER REGARDING AND ADOPTING A CONFIDENTIALITY POLICY AND AGREEMENT Employees of these Courts occupy positions of public trust. In the course of your duties, you will encounter confidential i
Reviewer note: Composed 2026-09-21 (corpus-0920 P9b, registry lane) from the registered file (TOPICs 2247, sha256 24f9ca74c4ee..., 4 pages; registered 01/16/2025) - digital text layer reflowed page-aware, cross-checked against a second extractor (0 substantive difference(s)), owner-corpus candidate sentences 100% (4/4) matched, no debris. Page 1 caption and file stamp corrected from the render; NOT yet read page by page against the render: confidence medium with an open re-verification task; flip to high when a reviewer has read every page against the PDF. [benchpath-tx-corpus0920-p9b-2026-09-21] [BY-EYE CHECK 2026-09-21 (corpus-0920 P11, registry lane): every page of the registered file (TOPICs 2247, sha256 24f9ca74c4ee..., 4 page(s)) read against the rendered PDF; file-stamp, caption and signature-block defects of the text layer corrected from the render; confidence lifted to high. benchpath-tx-corpus0920-p11-2026-09-21]
Standing order of the 109th Judicial District Court for every pending or later-filed case in Andrews, Winkler and Crane Counties: any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting in a case must, before using AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the court's certification form stating that all language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analysis created or contributed to by generative AI were verified as accurate by a human through traditional (non-AI) legal sources, and acknowledging responsibility and potential sanctions for their or their co-counsel's failure to comply. Effective immediately; in effect until rescinded or replaced.
Standing order of the 109th Judicial District Court for every pending or later-filed case in Andrews, Winkler and Crane Counties: any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting in a case must, before using AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the court's certification form stating that all language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analysis created or contributed to by generative AI were verified as accurate by a human through traditional (non-AI) legal sources, and acknowledging responsibility and potential sanctions for their or their co-counsel's failure to comply. Effective immediately; in effect until rescinded or replaced.