Akerman partner Katherine Giddings was at the forefront of technological change as Florida courts shifted to electronic filings and live broadcasts of Florida Supreme Court arguments.

The deputy chair of the firm's litigation group is now set for a starring role when the high court conducts video arguments for the first time May 6. April arguments, including Giddings' case, were canceled due to the coronavirus pandemic, and this is the court's response.

"I think that it is actually awesome that the Supreme Court is figuring out a way to keep doing business and gets these cases processed," she said Tuesday after receiving a news release from the court announcing the switch to remote video using the Zoom platform. 

Giddings represents Florigrown LLC in a challenge to the constitutionality of state Health Department rules implementing the medical marijuana referendum adopted by state voters in 2016. Another case to be argued in the same session addresses the wording of a proposed recreational marijuana initiative.

Giddings had loads of experience before the court, including her involvement in more than 80 cases and working as a staff attorney for a justice for seven years.

But this is like Monty Python's "Something Completely Different."

"It's obviously going to be different, but my understanding is they're going to be reaching out to us and doing a dry run," she said. "Hopefully there won't be any surprises. I expect it to be dignified and efficient and competently done."

Giddings has experience with WebEx video conferences and will join her first Zoom session Thursday. For arguments, she will go to the firm's Tallahassee office.

"I live out in the country. My home internet is not that great," she said. She plans to "stay well away from everyone and do it from the office."

Video attendance is limited to the justices, attorneys and technical staff.

Court spokesman Craig Waters is already managing expectations.

"The video and audio may not be the most polished production in our 23 years of live broadcasting Supreme Court arguments, but it will let the work of the court continue during the pandemic in a way that is consistent with public health guidelines," he said by email.

Giddings is pretty confident about the technical side on her end. When Akerman switched to remote work in mid-March, the decision was announced, and "we went remotely. As far as the attorneys were concerned, it was flawless," she said.

By chance, Giddings made a wise move when she left her office.

"Originally the day we got sent home from the office, (I have a methodical way I prepare for oral argument), I grabbed all my notebooks because I didn't know how long we would be quarantined, and it's a good thing I did."

She wonders if the Zoom option will result in a long-term change.

"Now that we're going to find out these things can be done, what are we going to do going forward?" she asked. "Is it now going to become the norm to have some type of WebEx or Zoom hearings? That's probably the biggest thing that's going to come out of this."

For now, the court isn't sure what will happen in June because of uncertainty about when people return to work and when the travel and hospitality industries revive.

"After May's arguments, we will study how well this system works, tweak it and have the system available for future arguments if it still is needed," Waters said.

While internal access to the arguments is strictly limited, public access will be available on the court's existing livestream feeds, which include a Facebook Live channel.

Each state is evaluating the resumption of court operations individually. The California Supreme Court was ahead on remote arguments, holding its first video hearings April 7, and the Texas Supreme Court followed April 8.