JCIT discusses redaction tools, pro se notice gaps and using guided interviews/AI to reduce filing errors

Committee members discussed how adding documents to Research Texas does not automatically change access rules and emphasized the need to retain proper redaction and statutory protections for sensitive records.

A staff member (S11) told the committee that OCA has already paid for an auto-redaction tool and that enabling redaction is a configuration option rather than a new purchase: "It does. It's just a configuration." Members asked staff to consider enabling redaction configuration for criminal-related or sensitive case types and to return to the committee with recommendations.

Members also flagged pro se filers as a key risk group: many high-return-for-correction filings (occupational driver's license and repair-and-remedy filings in JP courts) are likely pro se and may submit incomplete or improperly redacted documents. The committee proposed improving guided filing interviews and form guidance and suggested piloting improvements beginning with occupational driver's-license filings to reduce rejection rates.

Discussion about generative AI centered on the risk of hallucinations and poor citations when pro se filers or novice attorneys use general-purpose AI tools. Several members urged building better guided-interview flows or narrowly scoped AI tools to assist pro se filers without giving legal advice. The committee agreed to include pro se notification and AI/guided-form improvements on the subcommittee's workplan.

Next step: subcommittees will examine whether to enable auto-redaction configuration, how to extend e-notice to pro se filers, and which case types to pilot with upgraded guided interviews. Members asked for concrete proposals at the June meeting.