Before the COVID-19 pandemic, I could count my monthly court appearances on both hands. Nowadays, stepping into a courtroom feels almost nostalgic. The pandemic didn’t just shake things up; it flipped California’s justice system on its head. Remote technology made legal proceedings more accessible and efficient. What began as a temporary fix, born of necessity, has now become a permanent fixture in California’s legal landscape, but challenges remain. In this blog, we will dive into both the benefits and drawbacks of remote hearings.
The Efficiency and Accessibility of Remote Hearings
As a California litigator, I was not surprised to learn around 10,000 court hearings take place online daily via phone or computer now. Remote hearings have become marvels of efficiency, saving Californians an astounding 3 million trips to courthouses each year. According to the Judicial Council of California, ninety-six percent of survey respondents reported a positive experience after participating in one of the more than 3.5 million remote court hearings since 2022. This overwhelming positive feedback has boosted participation from litigants, attorneys, court staff, and other stakeholders, making the justice system more accessible and inclusive. No wonder remote hearings are a smash hit.
Challenges and Resistance to Remote Hearings
Despite widespread support, the push to make remote court hearings permanent faces some resistance. Not all judges are onboard, and based on my own experience, I understand why. I’ve witnessed firsthand the difficulties online participants face, especially those not tech-savvy. Remember the attorney who went viral for attending a hearing as a cat because he couldn’t disable a filter? I wish I could say that was the only glitch I’ve seen, but even now, issues persist. Online attendees often forget to mute microphones and cameras, struggle to disable notifications or filters, and frequently face connectivity problems. The platforms themselves can suffer technical difficulties, as LA Court Connect did recently, causing chaos among participants who were unable to access scheduled hearings. These technical glitches can be frustrating and disruptive, wreaking havoc on a court’s calendar.
The Debate Over Remote Witness Testimony
One of the biggest points of contention is remote witness testimony. Even with all the technological advancements, nothing can replace in-person witness testimony. Judges and juries prefer it because it allows them to pick up on critical cues that can be lost in a remote setting. A witness’s demeanor and nonverbal cues are essential for assessing credibility. Bad connectivity, poor lighting, or inadequate equipment all interfere with the trier of fact’s ability to make these assessments when a witness testifies remotely. This has led several Los Angeles judges to express relief that California Senate Bill No. 133, which extends the authorization of remote court proceedings for civil cases until January 1, 2026, grants a judge discretion to require in-person appearances.
Conclusion: The Future of Justice is Remote
Remote court proceedings in California are nothing short of revolutionary. They offer unparalleled accessibility, reduced costs, and increased participation. While challenges remain, addressing them ensures the full realization of remote technology’s benefits. California’s justice system is evolving to become more efficient, accessible, and responsive to the needs of its people. The future of justice is here, and it’s remote.
