Lawyers' deadlines to file and serve a lawsuit have been extended to July 15 because of the COVID-19 pandemic under a new Texas Supreme Court order.

The deadline extension is one new development under the 12th emergency order that the high court issued Monday, just hours after Gov. Greg Abbott announced his phased approach to reopening some Texas businesses at 25% capacity.

Appellate attorneys should note they still need to request specific deadline extensions from appellate courts, since the order's July 15 deadline extension does not apply to appellate deadlines. However, the order tells appellate courts that lawyers' extension requests "should be generously granted."

Another new development is that the push for judges to use telephone and video hearings has now been extended to grand juries.

Remote hearings are still not allowed for jury trials.

|

Read the full order here:

The order includes new wording that clarifies restrictions on in-person judicial proceedings.

The Supreme Court tells lower courts to use all reasonable efforts to allow remote proceedings.

"Courts must not conduct in-person proceedings contrary to guidance issued by the Office of Court Administration regarding social distancing, maximum group size, and other restrictions and precautions," the order said.

The latest guidance from the administrative office told courts to delay in-person proceedings of any size until June 1. If a remote hearing isn't possible, a court can do an in-person proceeding in an essential case, but only if it includes no more than 10 people. They should wear face masks and make sure to comply with social distancing.

"No non-essential proceedings should be held in-person," the guidance said, adding that there's no limit on using remote proceedings to handle those matters.

Previously, an emergency order extended deadlines for lawyer discipline cases. This new order extends that deadline further to July 15.

The 12th emergency order also extends the high court's pause on evictions during the pandemic, and extends an order that told divorced parents who share child custody to follow their original trial court order—not any local government's stay-home order—to determine who gets possession of and access to a child.

Related story: