It has happened to every litigator practicing in the Pennsylvania Courts of Common Pleas. You have worked overnight to complete a brief or pleading before the filing deadline, you have just obtained your client’s approval to file, and then you file with a local county prothonotary right before the filing deadline. The problem? The next morning, you receive a rejection notice from the prothonotary. Despite your gallant drive, the prothonotary declined to file the document. Perhaps the filing did not comply with a local rule or, worse yet, your filing failed to comply with an unwritten administrative practice the prothonotary silently observes.
This happens all the time, but it shouldn’t. In this article, we will explain the limitations of the prothonotary and how to address a prothonotary’s incorrect rejection of filings.
The Prothonotary
The word “prothonotary” comes from the combination of the Greek prefix proto- (meaning “first”, for example, prototype) and the Latin notarius (meaning “scribe.”) (Despite this etymology, practitioners typically pronounce the word as pro-thon-o-tary.) It is one of many ancient words used in Pennsylvania legal practice. Traditionally an official who collected commission directly from filing and records services, the Pennsylvania government over time has altered the prothonotary’s role to a salaried employee who serves their local county. See generally Francis S. Fox, The Prothonotary: Linchpin of Provincial and State Government in Eighteenth-Century Pennsylvania, 59 Penn. History 1, 43 (1992).
Today, the prothonotary is simply the chief clerk serving a county. As of 2025, Pennsylvania and Delaware are the only states to use the term prothonotary for their chief filing clerk. The Pennsylvania Constitution clarifies the offices as being “of the court of common pleas of the judicial district.” See Pa. Cons. Art. 5, § 15. In most of Pennsylvania, prothonotaries are elected positions, with the prothonotary holding a four-year term. 16 Pa. C.S. § 4301. Other than filing documents, prothonotaries have multiple roles, including entering judgments and marking the satisfaction of judgments. Pa. C.S. § 2737.
Despite their election and grand, difficult-to-pronounce title, Pennsylvania Courts have repeatedly held that the prothonotary is a non-judicial role with limited power. The prothonotary’s role, “while vitally important, is purely ministerial.” In re Administrative Order No. 1-MD-2003, 936 A.2d 1, 9 (Pa. 2007). Any power the prothonotary has must derive from statute or rule. Interpretation of statutes, rules, and cases are beyond the prothonotary’s ken. Nevertheless, confusion over the relationship between the prothonotary and the courts, including the court’s ability to determine a prothonotary’s compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure, remain. See, e.g., Scheibe v. Woodloch Resort, 338 A.3d 176, 179 (noting trial court found that it had no authority to assess whether local prothonotary complied with Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure).
Limitations on Rejections
Despite the common experience of rejected filings, the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure are consistent with the above limitations on a prothonotary’s power. Promulgated in 1985, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 205.2 explicitly states as follows:
No pleading or other legal paper that complies with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure shall be refused for filing by the prothonotary based on a requirement of a local rule of civil procedure or judicial administration, including local Rules 205.2(a) and 205.2(b) [relating to cover sheets].
For electronic filings, where this issue is particularly pronounced due to sometimes complex “drop-down” menus and interfaces, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 205.4(e)(2) provides a similar rule. The accompanying 1985 Comment to Rule 205.2 squarely addresses the out-of-county lawyer conundrum, stating, “While a local court should be free to require additional information to aid in the orderly administration of justice, an out-of-county attorney or litigant should not be penalized with a missed filing date because of the failure to supply the required information.” The 2003 Comment to Rule 239, which allows for the promulgation of local rules, further recognizes that “[t]he primary obstacle to the statewide practice of law has been the inability of lawyers to learn how each court of common pleas actually operates, particularly with respect to pre-trial applications.”
Even when a filing does not comply with statewide rules, there are limitations on a prothonotary’s ability to reject a filing. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held in Com. v. Williams, 106 A.3d 583 (Pa. 2014) that its own prothonotary may only reject filings when rules and other law provide “narrow language that leaves little or no room for independent action or discretionary review by the office of the prothonotary.” Williams, 106 A.3d at 589 n.9. Further, although the prothonotary has the power to reject some filings, “the power to reject such documents is limited to notifying the proper party that the document is defective so that the defect may be corrected through amendment or addendum.” Nagy v. Best Home Services, Inc., 829 A.2d 1166, 1170 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003). (This is indeed the norm in other jurisdictions, like the federal courts, where the clerk will docket a defective document and provide time for the litigant to amend the deficiencies.) A document is “filed” under the Rules of Civil Procedure once it passes through the prothonotary’s office, and the “time-stamping of the document is nothing more than a ministerial act following the actual filing of the document.” Griffin v. Central Sprinkler Corp., 823 A.2d 191, 198 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003).
Nightmare in Action – Scheibe v. Woodloch Resort
Although filing rejections are commonplace, they usually do not lead to anything more than mere annoyance. For example, if a motion for summary judgment is rejected at the deadline, a filing one day late is unlikely to cause the requisite prejudice that would lead a court to disregard it entirely, particularly if the litigant shows the attempt to comply with the deadline. Such laxity in filing schedules is not found in the statute of limitations or notice of appeal realms, however. It is here where a prothonotary’s decision to reject could lead to a substantive abolishment of a litigant’s rights and, for counsel, malpractice concerns.
For example, in Scheibe v. Woodloch Resort, 338 A.3d 176 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025), counsel for a husband and wife sought to sue a resort for injuries the husband sustained while using a waterslide. Six days before the statute of limitations expired, the lawyer for the would-be plaintiffs mailed a writ of summons to a local prothonotary via overnight delivery. For reasons unclear, the local prothonotary did not immediately docket or address purported deficiencies in the writ. On the day the statute of limitations was to expire, however, the local prothonotary called the would-be plaintiffs’ lawyer, noting that it would not accept the writ because it violated a local rule of civil procedure which required an “original” signature. The prothonotary interpreted this rule to mean the signature must be handwritten; the signature accompanying the writ was electronically signed. Although the lawyer protested that the writ complied with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the local prothonotary refused to file the writ unless the writ was accompanied with a handwritten signature. The lawyer complied, but the writ with the handwritten signature was not received until the day after the statute of limitations expired. Consequently, the defendant moved for a motion for judgment on the pleadings on statute of limitations grounds, and the trial court granted that motion.
On appeal, the Superior Court reversed. First, the Scheibe Court held that there was no statewide rule requiring that a signature on a filing be handwritten. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 76 allows for a signature to be a “computer generated signature” and a “signature created … by electronic means” by the signer. Consequently, the local rule requiring a handwritten signature violated the state-wide Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Second, and more pertinent to this article, the Scheibe Court held that, despite the prothonotary’s purported rejection, the writ of summons was timely filed. While the prothonotary had the authority to inspect the writ for compliance with local rules, and inform parties of the defects in their filings, the prothonotary had no authority to reject the filing altogether. Instead, the filing occurred when the writ first entered the prothonotary’s office. As evidenced by the prothonotary office’s phone call, this occurred before the statute of limitations expired. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed the writ of summons timely, and their case could proceed.
Ultimately, the parties on the wrong end of an improper prothonotary rejection prevailed, but they expended significant time and resources in correcting the prothonotary’s error.
How to Avoid or Address an Improper Rejection
One expected retort to this article, consistent with the cliché “To be early is to be on time; to be on time is to be late”, would simply be to file ahead of any deadline. That way, if a prothonotary properly or improperly rejects a filing, changes can be made for a timely filing. While ideal, often this option is unavailable. For example, a client may have taken an unexpectedly long time to approve a document for filing, or a client may have only sought legal counsel three days ahead of the expiration of the statute of limitations. In these cases, a lawyer must file near or on the filing deadline. Additionally, it may not be enough. For example, the plaintiffs’ lawyer in the Scheibe case mailed overnight the writ of summons six days before the expiration of the statute of limitations. The prothonotary nevertheless rejected the filing on the date the statute of limitations was set to expire. Although the offices vary from county to county, such a delay between the filing and the prothonotary’s decision to docket or reject are not uncommon.
Another thought entering the minds of the aggressive and upset lawyer with a rejected filing may be to sue the prothonotary. As expected, there are significant limitations on such suits in modern day jurisprudence. Although the law surrounding this issue is murky, and no cases directly on point exist, courts have appeared reluctant to impose negligence liability on prothonotaries. See Commonwealth to the Use of Orris v. Roberts, 141 A.2d 393 (Pa. 1958); but see Petticord v. Joyce, 531 A.2d 1383 (Pa. 1987) (holding prothonotary could be held liable for “affirmative” negligent acts but not considering potential sovereign immunity arguments).
On the issue of an improperly rejected notice of appeal, the solution could be to file an appeal nunc pro tunc (Latin: “now for then”). Although an extraordinary remedy, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court permits the filing of an appeal nunc pro tunc when there is a “breakdown in the court’s operation” Cook v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 671 A.2d 1130, 1131 (Pa. 1996). Such could be the case when the prothonotary has failed to docket a notice of appeal.
Additionally, in such a moment, the filing lawyer could remind the prothonotary’s office that it legally cannot reject filings that comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. This was apparently the route the lawyer in the Scheibe case took, unsuccessfully. Indeed, a rank-and-file member of the prothonotary’s office may be unlikely to be swayed by an outside lawyer’s advocacy on this point and would likely follow office protocol, even if that protocol is inconsistent with the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Ultimately, however, whenever a prothonotary improperly refuses to docket a filing, the simplest approach may be to explain the law to the trial court or, as the Scheibe lawyer did, the appellate courts.
Conclusion
In a jurisdiction without a uniform filing system, the local prothonotaries are “vitally important[.]” In re Administrative Order No. 1-MD-2003, 936 A.2d 1 (Pa. 2007). Despite the prothonotary’s limited authority, improper rejections of filings by prothonotaries have significant consequences that impact a client’s substantive rights. Absent the creation of a Pennsylvania uniform filing system, the issue is likely to continue arising. Knowing the above law, however, should guide you or your client in the next argument over the timeliness of an improperly rejected document.
For additional questions, please contact Robert Cahall, Esq. or Christopher Regan, Esq.
This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of McCormick & Priore, P.C.