In the fast-paced realm of the judiciary, where courts grapple with overflowing dockets and scarce resources, a simple yet effective procedural change could significantly ease the burden: requiring litigants to submit proposed orders along with their motions. This practice, already in place in certain jurisdictions, not only streamlines the decision-making process but potentially reduces errors that can arise from judicial oversight.

Judicial mistakes, while not uncommon, range from failing to grant the exact relief sought in motions due to a lack of detailed review, to drafting orders with ambiguities that necessitate further clarification. There have even been instances where judges, perhaps in an attempt to expedite rulings, have used artificial intelligence tools, leading to decisions citing non-existent authorities. Such errors, which could potentially affect the outcome of legal proceedings, underscore the need for more precise initial submissions from the parties involved.

In jurisdictions where litigants are required to provide a proposed order, the document must be editable, typically submitted in a Word format. This allows judges the flexibility to make necessary alterations, ensuring the final order accurately reflects the court's intention and reasoning. The proposed order includes the specific relief requested and any ancillary issues such as follow-up deadlines, encapsulating the litigant's complete request and anticipated resolution.

While some may argue that a proposed order might limit a judge's ability to deliver a nuanced decision, especially in complex cases, the benefits in routine motions are undeniable. Common motions like those to amend pleadings or to compel discovery usually have predictable outcomes and can be efficiently resolved by endorsing a well-crafted proposed order. This not only saves time but also frees up judicial resources for more contentious or complicated matters.

It's important to note, however, that judges are not merely rubber-stamping these documents. They critically assess and modify the proposed orders to ensure fairness and legal accuracy, sometimes incorporating perspectives from opposing motions or their own legal reasoning.

Despite potential pitfalls, the adoption of mandatory proposed orders could represent a significant step toward more efficient judicial processes. By formalizing this requirement, courts can reduce the likelihood of errors, decrease the time spent on routine matters, and allocate more resources to complex cases that demand greater scrutiny.

Such procedural enhancements, while seemingly minor, could lead to substantial improvements in the administration of justice, benefiting not only the courts but all parties involved in legal proceedings. As more jurisdictions consider this approach, the overarching goal remains clear: to ensure that justice is served promptly and precisely.