Increasing Access Through Virtual Proceedings
Litigation Section leaders see the New Jersey framework as a blueprint for expanding virtual proceedings nationwide, which may come with several advantages. For example, Rachel Pereira, Washington, DC, cochair of the Section’s Access to Justice Committee, believes virtual judicial proceedings have opened up access to proceedings for a segment of the population that might otherwise have difficulty getting to the courthouse.
“Videoconference and remote court proceedings have benefit,” Pereira asserts. “Remote proceedings allow people to participate without having to take time off work and allow low-income litigants with commuting issues or child-care issues to be able to have greater access without the burden that would have been caused otherwise.”
However, Pereira notes that the expansion of virtual proceedings presupposes that the litigants and parties have access to a stable internet connection and technology, which could prove expensive. She proposes that courts consider providing a “hotspot system” or some other technology that individuals can borrow to access a judicial videoconference. “I’m not a technology guru,” Pereira remarks, “but if libraries can loan computers to people, certainly courts can do it.”
Other Section leaders agree that allowing courts more flexibility to utilize virtual proceedings will increase citizen access to the judicial system under the right circumstances. “I anticipate that courts will continue to offer virtual hearings and trials as an alternative—rather than as the sole option—even when regular in-person proceedings resume,” predicts Adrian K. Felix, Miami, FL, cochair of the Section’s Judicial Intern Opportunity Program. “It is important to remember that in-person hearings do not have an insignificant time and cost burden, particularly for individuals, so having a viable alternative to that should be an overall positive,” he affirms.
Increasing Efficiency Through Virtual Proceedings
More virtual proceedings will also lead to a more efficient court system overall, according to Felix. “For example, the administrative side of scheduling hearings is easier because lawyers can fit more on their calendars when travel is not involved,” he notes. “And that, in addition to reducing costs associated with traveling, allows litigation cases to be moved along faster, which in turn helps with judges’ caseloads and overburdening of the system in general,” Felix concludes.
Potential Setbacks in a Virtual Environment
While there are many tangible benefits to taking court online, Section leaders recognize that plenty of kinks still exist in virtual litigation. Courts must address these issues before proceeding with a more aggressive implementation of virtual litigation moving forward, according to both Pereira and Felix.
One potential downside is the limited ability for litigators to engage in confidential communications with clients who may be in a separate physical location. “If there is no provision for attorney-client communication that can occur when appearing separately remotely, there is less communication,” Pereira observes. “The quality of care that our clients experience when there is no private space to speak can be difficult, and not having the ability to communicate confidentially can cause a hardship to the types of communications received,” she warns.
Another issue is that it may be more difficult to communicate through nonverbal cues, which are typically easily visible during in-person hearings but not always readily ascertainable on a small box in a videoconference. “One of the main limitations and jurist perspective is just the ability to pick up on and react to nonverbal communications,” Felix stresses. “Body language can be as important as verbal communications and a static camera often hides or limits the things we may otherwise spot in person.”
Virtual Litigation Is Here to Stay
The New Jersey Supreme Court’s predilection toward virtual proceedings in civil motion practice and even certain criminal proceedings likely signals a new reality nationwide, according to Section leaders: Virtual hearings will not disappear post-pandemic.
“As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention, and the COVID-19 pandemic has forced courts and lawyers to pivot and find a workable alternative to in-person hearings and trials,” Felix offers. “So now, having spent the better part of two years refining a virtual alternative, and recognizing the efficiencies that have come with it, I do not see courts or lawyers simply abandoning the option in favor of in-person proceedings,” he opines.
Likewise, Pereira believes virtual hearings are here to stay and expects some growing pains along the way. “Recognize how incredibly difficult it is to shift methods, particularly when our judicial system is set up on precedent,” she states. “Moving away from what we have always done is the antithesis of our profession, and I understand why it might be difficult.”
That said, Pereira recognizes virtual litigation as a viable part of attorneys’ everyday practice moving forward. “I like the idea so long as we can recognize the challenges ahead and address them,” she concludes. “Address the challenges and then what a wonderful world it could be.”
