Illinois partner feedback
The original Illinois notes asked to remove the required Check documents / filing plan step and instead make an optional filing checklist available based on case type and party.
The main change is that filers should not be required to indicate that they have completed or reviewed the checklist before continuing with their filing.
The checklist may still be displayed as part of the Documents flow, and filers may interact with it if useful.
Proposed behavior
- Keep document checklist/guidance available in the Documents portion of the workflow.
- Do not require the filer to check off every item or explicitly confirm that they have all documents.
- Do not require
document_checklist_acknowledged or an equivalent acknowledgement before proceeding.
- Allow the filer to continue to document organization and the rest of the filing regardless of checklist status.
- If checklist progress such as "have," "filed," or "later" is useful to the filer, it may remain available, but using it should be optional.
- Do not treat unchecked checklist items as errors that prevent filing.
Guidance language
Also soften the checklist language so that LITEFile does not appear to determine the legally correct or complete set of forms for the filer.
For example, instead of:
- "Always needed"
- "You need to file a Petition and Summons"
- "Your filing is missing..."
prefer language such as:
- "Commonly included"
- "May apply"
- "Some filings with these selections include..."
- "Depending on your situation, other documents may be needed."
The checklist can help users understand documents that may be associated with the filing context without representing that LITEFile has determined what they should file.
Acceptance criteria
- The document checklist may appear in the normal Documents flow.
- A filer can continue without checking any checklist items.
- A filer can continue without affirmatively saying that the checklist is complete.
- Checklist acknowledgement/state does not gate Organize Documents or later workflow steps.
- Optional checklist progress can still be saved if that functionality is useful.
- Checklist wording does not represent the listed documents as a guaranteed or complete set of legally required forms.
- Unchecked checklist items do not create blocking validation errors.
Out of scope
This issue does not require:
Related
Illinois partner feedback
The original Illinois notes asked to remove the required Check documents / filing plan step and instead make an optional filing checklist available based on case type and party.
The main change is that filers should not be required to indicate that they have completed or reviewed the checklist before continuing with their filing.
The checklist may still be displayed as part of the Documents flow, and filers may interact with it if useful.
Proposed behavior
document_checklist_acknowledgedor an equivalent acknowledgement before proceeding.Guidance language
Also soften the checklist language so that LITEFile does not appear to determine the legally correct or complete set of forms for the filer.
For example, instead of:
prefer language such as:
The checklist can help users understand documents that may be associated with the filing context without representing that LITEFile has determined what they should file.
Acceptance criteria
Out of scope
This issue does not require:
FilingPlanmodel or checklist-progress functionality;Related