'It Worked Amazingly Well': Leading CT Bankruptcy Attorney Adapts Quickly to Online Bench Trial
A recent videoconferenced bankruptcy court bench trial in Hartford was one of the state's first and went remarkably smoothly, according to top Connecticut bankruptcy attorney Craig Lifland, a partner with Halloran Sage.
April 24, 2020 at 11:47 AM
4 minute read
If you think videoconferencing has too many limitations or complications to effectively run an actual trial, a leading Connecticut bankruptcy attorney's satisfaction might change your mind.
Halloran Sage partner Craig Lifland, whose practice spans nearly four decades, said he was pleasantly surprised by the positive results an online exchange yielded in one of the state's first bankruptcy video bench trials recently, including exhibits, lawyers, witnesses and spectators from across the country.
"From my perspective it really worked amazingly well," Lifland said of the proceeding, which ran audio and video feeds via Cisco's Jabber software to U.S. Bankruptcy Judge James Tancredi of the District of Connecticut in Hartford. Lifland could see the faces of lawyers and witnesses as they spoke, as well as exhibits presented throughout the hearing. The event served as an example of the rapid changes taking place in U.S. courts across the country amid social distancing and the COVID-19 pandemic.
"It took some getting used to, but the procedure worked, and everyone's rights were preserved," Lifland said. "Technology has allowed us to handle all facets of the practice much more efficiently."
Achieving that positive result involved a considerable amount of preparation, Lifland acknowledged. "It took a while to get all the parties, players and witnesses together and to get the software in place," he said. "We actually then did a rehearsal and the law clerk and an IT person walked people through any possible software problems or glitches."
Lifland, who has been ranked as one of the state's top lawyers for years, did not have to travel to appear for this trial, and he said technological hiccups were kept to a minimum. "I was working from my home office and I could see each person on the witness stand. The software identifies each person's voice and puts them up on the screen. There was a slight delay, but not enough to make it problematic."
One tip, participants learned, is the audio channels in video communications eat up significant data bandwidth, so individuals should keep microphones muted unless it is their turn to speak. Also, with trials being public, a live stream was also made available for anyone with an internet connection to watch during the proceeding.
While videoconferencing might not perform as well in a jury trial, for Lifland's purposes the technology passed an important first test, and he said he expects online communications will quickly become a bigger part of his job. "Working remotely is something businesses are seeing as something that can be done, rather than flying across the country for a meeting. There will be less of a need for office space and less travel." It's "light years" ahead of where this lawyer started, when letters and 40-page documents would be copied, signed, stamped and dropped in the mail. "This is an amazing way for the process to keep going, but certainly the courts are not going to forego jury trials."
Lifland has represented borrowers and lenders in many large and complex Chapter 11 filings, and he said there is little doubt bankruptcy practices will have more on their plates—and screens—in the coming months and beyond. "Right now there are a lot of businesses trying to get access to government funds. It's a good guess that down the road there will be fallout from this, and more businesses will be seeking relief, either in bankruptcy court or in out-of-court workouts and restructures. There are always winners and losers, and we'll probably get a lot busier."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInvestors Sue in New York Over $440M International Crypto Ponzi Scheme
4 minute readRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readApple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250