Which describes a recommended action when there is a mismatch in workload in court?

• A. Do nothing until the problem resolves itself.
• B. Increase the number of tasks without adjusting workload.
• C. Give a specific example of demand overload or under-load and make suggestions to relieve the problem.
• D. Ignore fluctuations in workload.

Answer: (C)

When workload doesn’t line up with available resources, the most effective move is to document what’s happening with concrete examples of demand overload or under-load and propose practical ways to relieve the problem. Providing a specific instance (for example, a particular time period with a surge in filings or a lull in cases that leaves staff idle) makes the issue tangible and shows exactly where the strain is coming from. That clarity helps decision-makers see the impact and choose targeted fixes.

This approach matters because it moves beyond vague complaints. It lays out a real scenario, the resulting bottlenecks, and concrete relief options—such as reassigning cases, adjusting staffing or scheduling, cross-training staff, prioritizing urgent matters, or adopting process changes and automation to handle repetitive tasks. It also signals a proactive, data-informed stance rather than waiting for the problem to sort itself out.

Choosing to do nothing, or to simply add more tasks without aligning resources, ignores the root cause and tends to worsen backlogs and service quality. Ignoring fluctuations similarly leaves problems unaddressed and can lead to inconsistent court performance.