Illinois Supreme Court Creates Remote Proceedings Task Force
Illinois courts remained open throughout the COVID-19 pandemic by moving many court proceedings, where appropriate, to remote hearings in almost every type of case. In recognition of the importance of continuing the positive change brought by the transition to virtual hearings, the Supreme Court’s Illinois Judicial Conference has formed a Remote Proceedings Task Force (Task Force). The Task Force is charged with evaluating the current state of remote proceedings and connecting best practices for virtual hearings from across the state.
“Remote proceedings are not the wave of the future, they are our present,” Chief Justice Anne M. Burke said. “Illinois Courts have a long history of increasing access to justice and responding to the needs of the communities they serve. The Task Force will be an important part of ensuring that progress continues. While this work is going on, it is expected that courts across the state continue to offer remote appearances.”
The Task Force is composed of circuit judges, trial court administrators, circuit clerks, and practicing attorneys, each bringing a unique and essential point of view. Review the list of Task Force membership and learn more about the Illinois Judicial Conference. The Task Force is expected to make recommendations to the Supreme Court about potential rule and policy changes and trainings to further the use of virtual methods for conducting court business.
The Illinois Supreme Court has recognized the importance of remote hearings in Supreme Court Rules 45 and 241 and emphasized that remote appearances should not be viewed as merely temporary COVID-induced measures. In addition, remote hearings constitute a boon not only to self-represented litigants but also attorneys and other court participants who have reaped numerous benefits. Remote hearings have brought greater party participation, fewer defaults and failures to appear, and enhanced case management and scheduling.
“The Supreme Court is committed to increasing court access for litigants,” said Supreme Court Justice David K. Overstreet, a member of the Illinois Judicial Conference. “Remote hearings have proven to increase attendance and participation. We look forward to receiving the Task Force’s recommendations.”
To ensure each courthouse across the state has the needed technology to provide court participants with the ability to appear remotely, the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts is currently in the process of distributing significant grant funding to every circuit in the state to permanently update and upgrade technology in courtrooms to accommodate proceedings that are entirely remote or a mix of participants appearing in the courthouse and participants appearing by videoconference (e.g., Zoom) or by telephone.
Member Comments (7)
I am hopeful that the recommendations embrace remote hearings. They are most efficient and appropriate in many circumstances. Going back to the "old way" of having every case presumed to be an in-person hearing would ignore the efficiencies achieved these past couple of years.
Remote appearances in misdemeanor cases has been routine in other states for years. Arizona for example has had remote appearances, and in some cases even pleas, without a single reported case that supported a claim of a constitutional deficiency from that process. Even some low level felonies with the discretion of the judge.
AZ allows these remote appearances so long as the defendant is represented by an attorney: who can even appear without the defendant on-line or on the phone, so long as the attorney represents that he has contact with the client and that the courts have updated contact information.
This process allows clients to keep working (yes they lose their jobs if they have to take off work every 3-4 weeks). it encourages them to retain an attorney and that makes the process far more efficient than as a pro se. And by continuing to work, the client can afford a private lawyer, thus lifting a financial burden off of the State.
And it lessens the needed resources at the courthouses by reducing parking, security, and wear and tear on the physical facilities.
In 2019 I spoke to a Chief Judge about moving in this direction and was almost laughed out of his office. When the pandemic hit and the ZOOM orders started to issue I called to see if he remembered our conversation. We both laughed how sometimes change has to be forced on those who are intransigent in their unwillingness to adapt.
I would LOVE to be on this task force.
Donald J. Ramsell
President, National College for DUI Defense
Past President, DuPage Bar Ass'n.
Past Chair, ISBA Traffic Law & Courts Section Cuncil.
I am hoping that one of the fixes will be in relation to the never-ending confusion in Cook County courts about what types of traffic or DUI hearings are in person. For example, last month in Maywood the summary suspension hearings were remote.
This week, over ZOOM, the judge said all of these were in person (without any notice to the parties or a central posting of this change). Thus a continuance was attributed to the defendant, making the attorney appear uninformed.
This is typical in the courts in Cook County. Districts, courthouses and courtrooms all seem to have their own 'rules'. Enough of the zoom 'whack-a-mole".
Other court systems such as Kane and DuPage post the changes, and then notify the bar associations and lawyer groups, who spread the word rapidly. In other words, these other court systems seem to care about the lawyers and their clients.
I agree with Mr. Ramsell about the lack of standardization. I don't imagine that I am the only practitioner who has heard from the bench, in response to counsel's query about what rule was being used to allow/deny a remote proceeding, "My rules!" Also, the lack of standardization or guidance or discipline from the top has enabled some Law and Chancery calendars to dispense with hearings (remote or in-person) altogether. All communication is by email and joint status reports. Even if the status call is by Zoom, there is value to stepping up in front of the judge with opposing counsel and discussing, if even for a few minutes, where the case is going and floating a few trial balloons to be admired or shot down.
In some ways remote hearings are a boon for many litigants, especially those who in the types of cases where pro se appearances are common. But, in certain areas of law, it is not.If one gets a traffic ticket, and has to sit in court all morning and take off work before being ordered to pay a fine, then that is an incentive to be more careful driving. In consumer collection matters, the ability for the attorney to be able to talk to the litigant who shows up for a court call allows a quick payment plan rather than protracted litigation or later involuntary garnishments. Sometimes, the best way for things to get resolved is for a pro se to actually be present in a courtroom.
But, also in this race to the concept of "access to justice" especially for pro se litigants, everyone is forgetting that consideration has to be given to the effect remote court will have on the legal profession.
This is especially true for young attorneys coming up in the profession. Appearing in court in person often allows young attorneys to create relationships before and after the court call with counsel they see often, to learn how to properly present themselves to the court, and to watch proceedings before their case is called to learn about the process, the law on various issues, and various styles that do and don't tend to work before judges. What is a "routine" court call for seasoned attorneys is anything but routine for young attorneys. How many of us seasoned attorneys formed our early professional relationships and learned how to work within the system by attending those routine court calls?
But even for seasoned attorneys, court calls where attorneys are only let in from the waiting room for their case does not allow them to see how a judge who is new to them handles their call, their demeanor, and, again, what works and what does not.
Experience with the remote court process has shown all of us that it is easier for all of us to feel detached from the process. As a matter of human nature, it's easier to be uncivil, to be untruthful, to be disrespectful, or to be short with someone when one is alone talking to a screen. There is a reason that the way a courtroom is laid out and who is present in the room has developed. It is not simply for the pageantry. The psychology of a judge siting on a bench, higher than the attorneys and litigants, and wearing the robe signals their stature in the process. The presence of a sheriff's deputy in the room signals lawfulness, seriousness and order. The entire process coveys a majesty and seriousness about the reason we are all there that "watching on television" does not.
My concern throughout the process of moving to remote court calls and hearings has been what the effect on professionalism, and on young attorney training and relationship development, will be on our profession. Any task force formed should be sure to consider that the there must be a balance between increasing "access to justice" while not decreasing what in person court brings to both the public and the bar.
The benefits to individuals in the court system, to attorneys and to at least some judges has been immeasurable. Clients can appear with far less disruption - on a lunch break rather than a full morning off, without needing to find childcare, or for some clients with mobility issues such as elderly clients, an expensive and hard to arrange trip to court. Clients in remote areas or rural areas could utilize more attorneys when courts are on zoom rather than those in close driving distance.
Attorneys can be far more efficient with their time - they are able to appear in in more courts via zoom, even Will and Cook county in one morning; and instead of sitting and waiting around in a courtroom, they can continue to work on other files they would or could not carry to court, to research, etc.
The clients benefit from this more efficient use by lower billing costs. In fact, this option is cost saving in many ways (gas, parking, train, lost wage earning hours for clients, less strain on the building staff and services).
We also have a responsibility to the planet. Sending hundreds or more staff, judges, attorneys, clients, witnesses to one location increases the carbon footprint significantly - not just today but a harm that will linger for years.
I do take note of the commentator above, who pointed out that young attorneys might benefit from in-person opportunities to observe and interact. That is true but overstated (many attorneys were often so booked they rushed from court to court). I suggest there could be stronger mentoring for new attorneys - firms should be aware of that and mentoring partnerships do exist from for example ISBA and others, that could provide this. Additionally there are so many outstanding opportunities to connect with other attorneys in committees and bar associations and volunteer/pro-bono options. The value to a new attorney doesn't justify the friction it causes for the other stakeholders in determining remote or in person courts.
I applaud the Supreme Court for their continuing efforts to bring technology into our Courts to assist litigants and attorneys address legal matters in Court. During the Access to Justice Listening Tour with Chief Justice Burke last year we learned how important it was to keep our Courts open using Zoom hearings. Tremendous efficiencies and cost savings which can be passed on to clients. Lawyers can be more productive.
Dennis Orsey