Can a county's private debt-collection vendor edit court records or dockets in Texas?

Plain-English summary

Steven Watson, the Palo Pinto County Auditor, asked the Attorney General about private companies and attorneys that counties hire to collect unpaid court fines and fees. The Code of Criminal Procedure lets a commissioners court contract with a private attorney or vendor for these collection services. Watson explained that many of these vendors keep copies of the court's records or have direct electronic access to them, and that some can add notes, update status codes, and in some cases make substantive changes to the court's records. He asked three things: what counts as a court record or court docket, whether a vendor may make informational (non-substantive) notes like status codes, and whether a collection contract by itself lets non-court staff change entries in the court's documents.

On the first question, the AG declined to give one fixed definition. He explained that "court record" and "court docket" mean different things depending on context. A court record is commonly the official report of proceedings, the filed papers, any transcript, and exhibits. A docket can mean the formal record of all proceedings and filings or just a schedule of pending cases. Some "schedule" dockets are administrative tools rather than official records. Because the meanings shift with context, the AG said it was impossible to give a single definition that fits every situation, and it was unclear whether the particular documents Watson described would count as court records or a docket in any given context.

On the second question, the AG drew the key line. Section 37.10 of the Penal Code makes it a crime to tamper with a governmental record, which includes a court record (a decree, judgment, order, subpoena, warrant, minutes, or other document issued by a court). Changing information in an official court record without the court's knowledge or involvement would likely violate that statute. But courts also have wide discretion to manage their own dockets, and a reviewing court will not interfere absent a clear abuse of discretion. So letting a county's contracted collection attorneys or vendors add notations about the status of collection efforts to court documents would likely fall within the court's broad docket-management discretion, provided the court authorizes it.

On the third question, the AG concluded that whether a specific contract allows such changes would require reading that contract, which is outside the scope of an opinion. He noted, though, that a collection-services contract under the statute could allow private attorneys and vendors to make changes to court documents used jointly by the county and the provider to communicate collection information, as long as the court authorizes those changes. The AG also flagged that whether any particular conduct actually amounts to a crime is a fact question beyond an opinion's scope.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2014. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later Attorney General opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

What the opinion meant for those who asked

County Auditor Watson and county officials (as the opinion described it): The opinion described the boundary for collection arrangements: vendors may make court-authorized status notations on shared collection documents, but no one may alter official court records without the court's knowledge. It did not bless or condemn any particular Palo Pinto County arrangement, and treated whether a specific contract permitted changes as outside the opinion process.

Courts, judges, and clerks (as the opinion described it): The opinion described courts as having broad discretion to manage their own dockets, including authorizing contracted collection vendors to add status notations, and described the judge or clerk as the official charged with keeping the docket under article 45.017(a).

Private collection attorneys and vendors (as the opinion described it): The opinion described court-authorized status notations about collection efforts as likely permissible, but described changing an official court record without the court's knowledge or involvement as likely prohibited tampering under section 37.10 of the Penal Code.

Anyone asking whether specific conduct is a crime (as the opinion described it): The opinion treated whether any specific conduct amounted to a criminal violation as a fact question beyond the scope of an attorney general opinion.

Common questions

What counts as a 'court record' or 'court docket' in Texas?
The AG declined to give one definition. He explained both terms have different meanings in different contexts: a court record is generally the official report of proceedings and filings, while a docket can be the formal record of proceedings or a schedule of pending cases. Some schedule dockets are administrative tools rather than official records.

Can a county's collection vendor add status codes or notes to court documents?
The AG concluded that court-authorized status notations about collection efforts would likely fall within a court's broad discretion to manage its docket. The key is that the court authorizes the notations.

Is it illegal for a vendor to change a court's records?
Changing information in an official court record without the court's knowledge or involvement would likely be criminal tampering with a governmental record under section 37.10 of the Penal Code. Whether specific conduct actually crosses that line is a fact question the AG said an opinion cannot resolve.

Does a collection contract automatically let a vendor edit court entries?
Not by itself. The AG explained that whether a specific contract allows changes requires reading the contract, which is outside an opinion's scope. A contract could allow court-authorized changes to shared collection documents, but the court's authorization is what matters.

Background and statutory framework

Article 103.0031(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes a commissioners court to "enter into a contract with a private attorney or a public or private vendor for the provision of collection services" for unpaid fines and fees (Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 103.0031(a) (West 2006)). Watson's questions arose because some of those vendors keep or directly access the court's records.

The AG explained that "court record" and "court docket" carry context-dependent meanings, drawing on Black's Law Dictionary and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a(2). Article 45.017(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires justice and municipal courts to keep a docket listing the style and file number of each criminal action, the nature of the offense, and the proceedings that follow (Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 45.017(a) (West 2006); see Tex. R. Civ. P. 26, 507.3(a) for civil dockets). Some courts also keep "schedule" dockets that are administrative instruments rather than records for confidentiality purposes (citing Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-1035 (2014)).

On the criminal-law line, section 37.10 of the Penal Code makes it an offense to tamper with a governmental record, which includes a "court record," defined for that section as a "decree, judgment, order, subpoena, warrant, minutes, or other document issued by a court" (Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 37.01(1), (2)(A), 37.10(a) (West Supp. 2014)). The AG balanced that against the principle that courts have wide discretion in managing their dockets, with which a reviewing court will not interfere absent a clear abuse of discretion (Clanton v. Clark, 639 S.W.2d 929 (Tex. 1982)). The AG concluded that court-authorized collection notations likely fall within that discretion, while unauthorized changes to official records likely do not. Whether a specific contract permits such changes is outside the opinion process (Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0883 (2011)), as is whether specific conduct is criminal (Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0760 (2010)).

Citations

Statutory provisions and rules:

• Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 103.0031(a) (West 2006) (commissioners court collection-services contracts)
• Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 45.017(a) (West 2006) (justice and municipal court dockets)
• Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 37.01(2)(A), .10(a) (West Supp. 2014) (tampering with a governmental record)
• Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 37.01(1) (definition of "court record" for section 37.10)
• Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 37.10 (West Supp. 2014) (tampering offense)
• Tex. R. Civ. P. 76a(2) (definition of "court records" for sealing)
• Tex. R. Civ. P. 26, 507.3(a) (civil dockets)

Cases:

• Clanton v. Clark, 639 S.W.2d 929, 931 (Tex. 1982)

Other authorities referenced:

• Black's Law Dictionary 552, 1387 (9th ed. 2009)
• Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. Nos. GA-1035 (2014), GA-0883 (2011), GA-0760 (2010)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/greg-abbott/ga-1093
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2014/ga1093.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from the official PDF. Minor extraction artifacts were corrected; the linked PDF is authoritative.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
GREG ABBOTT

December 8, 2014

Mr. Steven E. Watson Opinion No. GA-1093
Palo Pinto County Auditor
Post Office Box 159 Re: Authority of a third party, pursuant to
Palo Pinto, Texas 76484 contract under article 103.0031 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, to make changes to a
court's docket, documents, or records
(RQ-1206-GA)

Dear Mr. Watson:

You ask three questions related to whether certain attorneys or vendors may be allowed to notate or amend specific court documents.[1] Article 103.0031 of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes a commissioners court to "enter into a contract with a private attorney or a public or private vendor for the provision of collection services" for unpaid fines and fees. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 103.0031(a) (West 2006). You explain that many of these attorneys or vendors "either maintain copies of the court's records on their own computer systems or have direct electronic access to the court's records." Request Letter at 2. You further explain that "some vendors are able to ... make notes in the court's records, update status codes, and in some instances, make substantive changes to the court's records." Id.

Related to these arrangements between counties and third parties, you first ask "what constitutes court records and a court docket." Id. at 5. Both of the terms "court record" and "court docket" can have various meanings depending on the context in which they are used. The common understanding of "court record" is "the official report of proceedings in a case, including the filed papers, a verbatim transcript of the trial or hearing (if any), and tangible exhibits." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1387 (9th ed. 2009); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 76a(2) (defining "court records" to include "all documents of any nature filed in connection with any matter before any civil court" for purposes of sealing court records). Common understandings of "docket" include both a "formal record [of] all the proceedings and filings in a court case" and a "schedule of pending cases." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 552 (9th ed. 2009). In line with the former definition, article 45.017 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires justice and municipal courts to keep a "docket" that contains a list of information, including the "style and file number of each criminal action," "the nature of the offense charged," and the date and nature of the proceedings that follow. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 45.017(a) (West 2006); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 26, 507.3(a) (requiring courts to keep civil dockets containing similar information). Apart from official dockets, courts may also keep "schedule" dockets that serve as administrative instruments for the court. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-1035 (2014) at 4 (explaining that a schedule docket is not a "record" for purposes of certain confidentiality statutes). Due to the various meanings of the terms "court record" and "court docket" depending on their context, it is impossible to provide a single definition that will apply in all instances. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the specific documents about which you ask would be considered either court records or a court docket in any given context.

Your second question asks whether a private attorney or vendor may "make informative, but non-substantive notes or changes, such as status codes, to the court's records or docket." Request Letter at 5. Section 37.10 of the Penal Code makes it a criminal offense to tamper with a governmental record, which includes a court record. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 37.01(2)(A), .10(a) (West Supp. 2014). "Court record," for purposes of section 37.10, is defined as a "decree, judgment, order, subpoena, warrant, minutes, or other document issued by a court." Id. § 37.01(1). To the extent that information in an official "court record" is being changed "without the court's knowledge or involvement," such activity would likely be prohibited by section 37.10.[2] Request Letter at 2; see TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 37.10 (West Supp. 2014); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 45.017(a) (West 2006) (requiring the judge or clerk of the court to "keep" the docket). Courts, however, are given wide discretion in managing their dockets, and a reviewing court will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion absent a showing of a clear abuse of discretion. Clanton v. Clark, 639 S.W.2d 929, 931 (Tex. 1982). Allowing private attorneys or vendors with whom the county has contracted for collections services to make notations about the status of collections efforts on court documents would likely fall within a court's broad discretion in managing the docket.

Your final question asks whether a contract for collection services impliedly allows nonjudicial personnel to change entries in the court's documents. Request Letter at 5. Whether a specific contract allows such changes would require review of that contract, which is outside the purview of an attorney general opinion. Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0883 (2011) at 4. As discussed above, however, a contract entered into pursuant to article 103.0031 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could allow private attorneys and vendors to make changes to court documents used jointly by the county and the collection services provider to communicate information related to collection efforts, so long as those changes are authorized by the court.

SUMMARY

Section 37.10 of the Penal Code prohibits tampering with governmental records, which include court records. To the extent that information in an official court docket is being changed without the court's knowledge or involvement, such activity would likely be prohibited by section 37.10.

Allowing private attorneys or vendors with whom the county has contracted for collections services to make notations about the status of collections efforts on court documents would likely fall within a court's broad discretion in managing the docket.

GREG ABBOTT
Attorney General of Texas

DANIEL T. HODGE
First Assistant Attorney General

JAMES D. BLACKLOCK
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel

VIRGINIA K. HOELSCHER
Chair, Opinion Committee

Virginia K. Hoelscher
Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee

[1] See Letter from Steven E. Watson, Palo Pinto Cnty. Auditor, to Honorable Greg Abbott, Tex. Att'y Gen. at 4 (June 12, 2014), https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opin ("Request Letter").

[2] Whether any specific conduct amounts to a violation of a criminal statute will require a factual inquiry and is beyond the scope of an attorney general opinion. Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0760 (2010) at 3.