Legal Definitions - excusable neglect

"Excusable neglect" is a legal term that describes a situation where a party involved in a lawsuit or legal proceeding misses a deadline or makes a procedural error, but does so for a justifiable reason rather than through intentional disregard or indifference. When a court determines that neglect was "excusable," it has the discretion to allow the party to correct the mistake, submit a late filing, or otherwise proceed with their case, even if a deadline has technically passed.

Courts take a flexible approach when deciding if neglect is excusable, considering all relevant circumstances. Key factors often include:

• The reason for the delay: Was it an honest mistake, an unforeseen emergency, or a technical error?
• The party's good faith: Did the party genuinely try to meet the deadline and act responsibly?
• The length of the delay: Was the missed deadline by a few hours or several months?
• Prejudice to the other side: Would allowing the late action unfairly harm the opposing party?

It's important to note that a client is generally held responsible for the actions and omissions of their attorney. Therefore, an attorney's excusable neglect can also be a basis for relief for their client. However, courts typically do not consider "indifference" or a complete lack of effort to meet deadlines as excusable.

Here are some examples of situations where a court might find excusable neglect:

• Administrative Oversight in a Non-Profit:

  A small non-profit organization is involved in a contract dispute. Their administrative assistant, who handles all incoming mail, accidentally places a court notice regarding a deadline for submitting a key affidavit into the wrong pile, leading to the affidavit being filed two days late. The organization's director, upon realizing the mistake, immediately contacts the court and opposing counsel to explain the situation.

  This illustrates excusable neglect because the delay was due to an honest, inadvertent clerical error rather than an intentional disregard for the deadline. A court would likely consider the short delay, the prompt action taken by the non-profit once the error was discovered, and the lack of significant prejudice to the opposing party when deciding whether to accept the late filing.

• Unforeseen Personal Emergency for a Self-Represented Individual:

  A self-represented individual (someone without an attorney) is pursuing a claim in small claims court. They miss a critical deadline to respond to a motion filed by the opposing party because they were unexpectedly called away for an urgent, mandatory work assignment in a remote area with no internet access for the entire week leading up to the deadline.

  Here, the individual's inability to meet the deadline stems from circumstances largely beyond their control – an unforeseen and unavoidable work obligation that prevented them from accessing legal documents or communicating. A court would assess if this reason was genuine, if the individual acted in good faith, and if the delay caused undue harm to the other party before determining if the neglect was excusable.

• Technical Glitch in a Law Firm's System:

  A law firm representing a client in a complex commercial lawsuit mistakenly calculates a filing deadline for a specific procedural motion due to a software glitch in their calendaring system. As a result, the motion is submitted a few hours after the official cutoff. The firm promptly identifies the error and explains the technical issue to the court.

  This example demonstrates excusable neglect arising from a technical or administrative oversight within a legal professional's office. While the client is generally responsible for their attorney's actions, a court might find this specific type of error – a software glitch leading to a minor delay – to be excusable, especially if the firm acted quickly to rectify it and the opposing party was not significantly disadvantaged by the brief delay.