This is the second post in a series I’m calling “Flipping the Script,” inspired by Episode 162 of the Texas Appellate Law Podcast. The series examines what Texas appellate courts could do to make appellate practice better.

The civil appellate docketing statement is outdated, and the case for fixing it is straightforward. It’s a fillable PDF that duplicates information practitioners have already entered or available elsewhere—counsel identities, party names, service details—with no integration between systems. In 2026, that gap is hard to justify.

What the Docketing Statement Does

For trial lawyers who don’t deal with it often, the docketing statement is an administrative filing required at the outset of most civil appeals. Its purpose is to give the court of appeals the information it needs to open the case, identify counsel, flag jurisdictional questions, and note whether extraordinary relief or a supersedeas bond is anticipated. Clerks use it to perform an initial jurisdictional check. That function is legitimate and worth preserving. For courts with mediation programs, it also helps flag cases for possible referral to mediation or pro bono programs on appeal.

Three Problems Worth Naming

The first is redundancy. Practitioners enter counsel and party information on the docketing statement, then enter it again in the e-filing system to set up service. Entering the same information two or three times should be unnecessary.

The second is format. A fillable PDF with fixed text fields isn’t built for the complexity of modern appeals. Text overflow, formatting constraints, and the general awkwardness of the form reflect technology from the early 2010s at best. Standardizing the form across the courts of appeals more than a decade ago seemed like a big step forward at the time. The technology available now makes that version look like a relic.

The third is an outdated rule reference. The appellate rules were amended a couple of years ago to remove the requirement that parties serve appellate court documents on other parties. The docketing statement still asks for a certificate of service listing the parties served. The form hasn’t caught up to the rule.

What’s Already Possible

This is where the conversation gets more interesting. re:SearchTX was built in part on the promise of becoming Texas’s answer to PACER—a unified electronic access point for state court records. One of its longer-term ambitions was to streamline how documents move through the system, including the creation and transmission of appellate records.

That infrastructure points toward a different model for the docketing statement entirely. If re:SearchTX or the e-filing system already holds the case data, the court of appeals should be able to import that data directly when a new appeal is opened. The Supreme Court already does something like this: it imports data from the courts of appeals when it opens cases. Extending that model downward, from trial court to court of appeals, is technically plausible.

After the podcast episode where I raised this issue, someone close to the Court’s operations reached out with a specific idea along these lines. Rather than requiring practitioners to fill out a separate form, the process could be initiated through the e-filing interface or re:SearchTX itself, with the court of appeals pulling the relevant data automatically. A side benefit: the clerk’s record could potentially be transmitted the same way, saving time for trial court clerks and practitioners alike and reducing the cost of obtaining the clerk’s record for appeal.

What Would Need to Change

The Office of Court Administration administers the docketing statement form. Any meaningful change requires OCA’s technology team to be involved and receptive. OCA is reportedly beginning a new case management project, which may create an opening for this kind of reform.

The courts themselves can be significant drivers here. Trial courts use different case management systems, which complicates direct data import. The e-filing system and re:SearchTX are the most realistic integration points because they sit above those differences. Clerks in particular rely on the form for their jurisdictional check process, so any new system needs to preserve that function. The conversation about redesigning the form needs to include courts, clerks, and lawyers—and the courts are well positioned to push it forward.

Why It Matters

Completing the docketing statement is among the first things an appellant does after filing a notice of appeal. Starting that process with a redundant, outdated form sends a signal—intentional or not—about how much the system values the practitioner’s time. The technology to do this better already exists. What’s needed is the will to use it.

Flipping the Script Series