Remote court proceedings appear to be ‘here to stay’

Five years after the COVID-19 pandemic locked the country down and placed judges in front of webcams, attorneys say courtroom remote practices remain an efficient option to save time and money for both them and their clients.

Virtual hearings are still commonly used in some cases, and if the Indiana Supreme Court accepts a recent administrative rule proposal, remote proceedings could be presumed in certain circumstances.

“I hope it’s here to stay,” said Stephanie Renner, an Indianapolis criminal lawyer and divorce attorney, in an interview with The Indiana Lawyer.

Efficiency

For attorneys like Renner, in-person proceedings are simply inefficient compared to their virtual counterparts, sometimes leaving her asking, “Why are we here?”

Recently, Renner traveled three hours to Evansville to get a diversion—or a conditional dismissal—for one of her criminal defense clients. Renner emphasized that, although the outcome was good for her client, the proceeding could’ve been conducted differently.

“If I hadn’t been driving around all day, I could have, you know, helped more people out,” she said, adding that her client also had to make a lengthy drive from Tennessee.

Jeff Cardella, a criminal defense attorney and expungement lawyer in Indianapolis, shared similar frustrations about the inconvenience that in-person proceedings can sometimes have.

From downtime in a courtroom to waiting to be called up in the docket to back-and-forth drives to courthouses, Cardella pointed out that unnecessary in-person hearings can waste half a day’s work.

When he was a public defender, Cardella said he found it more important to be in person with his clients, but now that he’s in the private sector, he enjoys the flexibility that comes with virtual practices.

And it’s not just lawyers who feel the benefits—judges do, too.

“You’re saving time for the court; you’re saving money for the lawyers and for the clients, too,” said Mark Renner, a former Indiana judicial officer of nearly 25 years who has now joined his daughter, Stephanie’s, legal practice.

“It makes a lot of sense,” he added.

In-person needs

Even though remote proceedings provide certain benefits, trials and other sensitive matters are still handled in person.

“For instance, a protective order, you could never do a protective order remotely,” Mark Renner said.

In Renner’s experience, being able to physically assess people’s credibility is crucial when determining cases.

“I’ve got to make sure that I’m seeing them, that I’m understanding where they’re coming from,” he said.

But each judge views things differently. Renner stressed that his opinions were solely his and should not be attributed to his former colleagues.

“I think if you talk to 20 different judges, you’ll get 20 different answers as to whether they can judge credibility over video feed, or whether they prefer it in person,” said Luke Britt, public information officer and legal counsel for the Marion County Superior Courts. “Our judges are kind of all over the place in how they approach that, just like lawyers are all over the place in how they want to approach something like that.”

Marion County, which in 2024 won the “Smart Courts Initiative: Integrated Digital Solutions for Court Management” award from the Center for Digital Government, offers the technology to make virtual practices possible.

According to Britt, the Marion Superior Court system hosts about a quarter of its proceedings virtually.

But he still says he thinks judges determine how they want to proceed on a case-by-case basis.

“I still don’t see an end to in-person proceedings,” Britt said. “I think some judges will prefer in-person proceedings, and so I don’t see that ever going away.”

New court rules

Earlier this year, Indiana Gov. Mike Braun issued an executive order eliminating hybrid remote work agreements.

Although that wouldn’t have affected the judiciary, remote proceedings aren’t as much a default now as they were right after COVID.

“There’s no substitute for looking somebody in the eye,” Britt said.

However, he hinted that a recent Indiana Supreme Court administrative rule proposal could reveal that remote proceedings really are here for good.

“I think it’s the expectation of the Supreme Court that this is probably part of the future judiciary,” Britt said.

On Sept. 30, 2022, the high court adopted Interim Administrative Rule 14, which expanded guidelines for remote proceedings and practices within Indiana’s judiciary—building off previous orders made during the pandemic.

In April, in response to a recommendation made by the Commission on Indiana’s Legal Future, the court requested a proposed final rule.

The updated proposal would set specific contexts for when a proceeding would be presumed remote or presumed in-person.

For example, in criminal matters, pretrial hearings on motions in limine, motions to suppress or discovery issues would be presumed to occur remotely.

In civil matters, case management conferences, pretrial conferences, discovery conferences and scheduling conferences would all be presumed remote.

Britt said Marion Superior uses that rule as a signpost when determining how to conduct its remote hearings.

Hard to go back

For Marion Superior, remote proceedings aren’t viewed from an efficiency or convenience standpoint, Britt said; rather, it’s more about having the option available if it’s needed.

The main consideration from the judges, he added, is making sure involved litigants feel “seen in the herd” and feel they have due process, whether remote or in person.

Cardella, who has been an attorney for 18 years now, says he thinks virtual proceedings are here to stay.

But he still believes the decision for virtual and in-person hearings should be left to the judicial officers to determine how they want to run their courtroom.

Just because it’s not as prevalent as it was right in the midst of COVID, Cardella predicts virtual practices will become more common with time, saying, “It’s hard to go back to the old way of doing it.”

For clients, virtual proceedings could be time-efficient, Stephanie Renner said, but sometimes in-person hearings are still the way to go.

“You know, a client might have a little bit more of an extensive criminal history, and so when the judge does have a say, and it gets set for a hearing, I see the value in going in person to those; it can be really fulfilling,” Renner said.

When an expungement is granted and signed in person, the client gets to see it themselves.

“I’m there to be their advocate, but they can also advocate for themselves,” Renner said. “It kind of gives them some closure, you know, to close that chapter of their, maybe, a colorful past.”•