Civil and criminal litigators who practice in Hartford Superior Court expressed support—but are concerned about the ripple effects—of an order from Hartford Superior Court Administrative Judge David Sheridan, requiring conference calls and delaying trials for up to three months in the wake of concerns over COVID-19.

In his Wednesday two-page directive, Sheridan ordered that—beginning Friday—all pretrial conferences, status conferences and trial managements conferences would be conducted over the phone until further notice. He also said requests for continuance for up to three months—that are based on legitimate concerns over exposure to the virus—will "be automatically granted."

On Thursday, the court announced all new Connecticut federal and superior court civil and criminal trials would be delayed until April 13.

While many attorneys expressed support over having conferences via phone, with some even arguing this should be a permanent policy, others questioned what the delay could mean.

"A three-month continuance is going to limit access to the courts from now, through the end of the year, as it will disrupt the calendar of almost all civil litigators," said attorney Peter Bowman of Stratford-based Billings, Barrett & Bowman. "Further, I am concerned that insurance companies will use this as an excuse to kick this down the road, instead of conducting an appropriate settlement assessment of our client's needs. I believe we will see less depositions, less court hearings and less trials, which will result in less settlements and delayed justice for our clients."

Sheridan declined to be interviewed for this story.

RisCassi & Davis attorney John Houlihan Jr. said that while he is not critical of Sheridan's mandate on the three-month continuance, he felt "there may be a need to do a total restructuring of the dockets as a result."

"They may blow out three months of dockets, and where will those cases go?" Houlihan asked. "There will be a big ripple effect. The courthouse will have to work hard to get those cases back on the docket without already disrupting cases already set for three months out. I do understand, though, it's a necessary evil."

Attorneys embraced the mandate of having pretrial conferences, status conferences and trial management conferences held via telephone.

"I think that there are many times when a conference or an argument could be done virtually, and it would make the whole process easier for lawyers and the court," said Paul Knag, a partner at Murtha Cullina in Stamford. "This is a good time to experiment with it, and see how it goes."

Knag said he sees no downside to the virtual conferences, with the exception of a settlement conference, which he said, "does not work by phone. It's important for the parties to interface with their lawyers separately, and then sometimes with the judge separately and that's difficult to facilitate by phone."

Chris Kriesen, founder and principal at Hartford-based The Kalon Law Firm, said the conference policy should continue even after fears of the virus subsides.

"Some of these measures should remain in place to take advantage of technology, and increase the efficiency of the court," he said Friday. "The federal courts already do state conferences and pretrials by phone. There is no need for lawyers to be driving all over the state to get to court for a short matter."

Hartford-based employment attorney Rick Hayber agreed, saying, "They should have gone to teleconferences for status conferences a long time ago."

Related stories: