Definition
A clerical error is a mistake arising from the mechanical process of writing, copying, or transcribing a document — as opposed to an error of judgment, reasoning, or legal conclusion. The term covers typographical mistakes, transposed figures, omitted words, and similar inaccuracies that result from the act of recording rather than from any deliberate decision or exercise of discretion.
In practice, clerical error operates as a legal term of art in two principal contexts:
1. Court records and judgments. A clerical error in a court's order or judgment is one that fails to accurately reflect what the court actually decided. Courts retain inherent authority — codified in rules like Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) — to correct such errors at any time, because the correction merely conforms the written record to the court's actual ruling. This contrasts with substantive or judicial errors, which require appeal or formal motion to alter the underlying decision.
2. Documents generally. In transactional, administrative, and procedural contexts, a clerical error in a contract, pleading, certificate, or official record is correctable without the legal significance ordinarily attached to mistakes of substance. Courts have historically been liberal in allowing such corrections precisely because the error does not reflect the intent of the parties or the court.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): An error on the part of an office worker, often a secretary or personal assistant.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Not separately defined; "clerical" in Webster's 1913 refers broadly to clergymen or to office clerks, and "error" carries its ordinary sense of a mistake.
The gap matters. In everyday speech, a clerical error is simply a careless workplace mistake — a missed decimal, a wrong date on a form. In law, the term carries a specific doctrinal weight: identifying an error as "clerical" determines whether a court may correct it summarily and without disturbing the merits, or whether correction requires a full appellate or post-judgment process. The classification is not just descriptive; it determines the remedy and the procedural path.
Common Confusion
Clerical error is frequently confused with judicial error (also called legal error or error of law). A judicial error is one where the court reached the wrong legal conclusion or exercised discretion incorrectly — the judgment says what the court meant to say, but what the court meant was wrong. A clerical error is one where the written judgment does not accurately capture what the court actually decided. The distinction governs whether correction is administrative (clerical) or requires appeal (judicial). Researchers should also distinguish clerical error from harmless error, which concerns whether an error — of any type — warrants reversal on appeal. An error can be both clerical and harmless, or clerical and prejudicial, depending on context.
Why It Matters in Research
The primary research trap is assuming that because an error is called "clerical," it is legally trivial. Courts sometimes dispute whether an error is truly clerical or whether it masks a substantive decision — and the outcome of that dispute determines the entire remedial path. When reading older case law, watch for courts using "clerical error" expansively to justify corrections that modern courts might characterize as impermissible substantive revision.
In administrative law and veterans' benefits contexts, the term operates differently from its use in civil procedure. The VA system's doctrine of Clear and Unmistakable Error (CUE) is a distinct and much more demanding standard — do not conflate CUE with ordinary clerical error. CUE involves erroneous prior decisions of law or fact; a simple clerical error in a VA record is handled through separate correction procedures entirely.
Historical sources in the Law Mind corpus will frequently cite the correction of clerical errors as unremarkable or near-automatic. That instinct remains largely accurate today, but the doctrinal boundary between clerical and judicial error has been sharpened considerably by modern procedural rules. Bouvier's note that clerical errors are "always readily corrected by the court" reflects the general principle but understates the litigation that can arise over classification.
For corpus researchers: entries touching on judgment correction, nunc pro tunc orders, Rule 60(a) motions, and appellate standards of review will all intersect with clerical error doctrine. The term is often the pivot point in post-judgment motion practice.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's and Burrill's are in close agreement, both defining clerical error as "a mistake in writing or copying; the mistake of a clerk or writer," and both citing the same authority (1 Ld. Raym. 183). This convergence reflects the term's stability in core meaning across the common law tradition.
Bouvier expands the definition usefully into examples — errors in the teste of a fieri facias, in a notary's certificate, in judgment entries — illustrating that courts treated a wide range of transcription-based mistakes as clerical and therefore correctable without formal appellate intervention. Bouvier's phrasing that clerical error is "always readily corrected by the court" captures the remedial liberality courts have traditionally extended to such mistakes.
Rapalje & Lawrence does not provide a direct entry; the source material reflects a cross-reference artifact rather than a substantive definition. Researchers should not treat the absence of a Rapalje entry as meaningful.
None of the historical dictionaries address the critical modern issue: the doctrinal test for distinguishing clerical from judicial error, which has been developed largely through case law under modern procedural codes. Historical sources are reliable for the core definition but silent on the line-drawing problems that now dominate the term's legal significance.
Jurisdictional Note
The authority to correct clerical errors in judgments is universally recognized across American jurisdictions, but the procedural mechanism and timing rules vary. Federal courts proceed under FRCP 60(a); state courts have analogous provisions, though the scope of what qualifies as "clerical" can differ at the margins. In criminal contexts, some jurisdictions impose additional constraints on post-judgment correction to protect finality interests.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Harmless Error and Structural Error — The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia
Standards of Review on Appeal (De Novo, Abuse of Discretion, Plain Error) — The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia
Effective Dates — Date of Claim, Date of Entitlement, and Clear and Unmistakable Error (CUE) — The Law Mind Military, Veterans & Admiralty Law Encyclopedia