Could Litigation Change Forever? Zoom Trials Already Cutting Costs for Litigants
"I feel certain that had this trial had been conducted in a courthouse, it would have taken longer, and it would have been a larger inconvenience, particularly for the nonparty witnesses, than it was," said Brian Barakat of Barakat Law in Coral Gables.
May 05, 2020 at 12:51 PM
4 minute read
When this South Florida commercial landlord-tenant dispute went to a bench trial amid COVID-19 court closures, the parties could only forge ahead online.
But now, this remote litigation has proved to be a boon for clients, who no longer have to pay witnesses to scale the state, search for parking or wait for hours in a hallway.
And attorney Brian Barakat, of Barakat Law in Coral Gables, hopes post-pandemic litigation will adapt.
Stay-at-home orders prompted the Florida Supreme Court to temporarily suspend rules requiring all parties to agree before witnesses can appear via video conference, but Barakat says the success of online litigation could make those rules redundant.
"It is my hope that when we come out of this pandemic that rule will be changed forever, and allow the court to make a decision whether they wish to accept testimony by video conference without the agreement of another side that maybe just wants to just delay the matter," Barakat said. "This has saved a great deal of money for the clients."
While the key players will probably always want to attend in person, Barakat said perhaps others should have a choice.
"For third-party witnesses, particularly ones that live far away, there's a real value in using this technology that's been here for quite a long time to make the administration of justice more efficient," he said.
Barakat teamed with Jordan Lewin of the Lewin Law Group in Coral Gables to represent barbershop Wild Card Men's Haircuts of Florida LLC, sued by its landlord Kendall Square Mall LLC after a joint build-out project turned sour and its tenants canceled the lease.
Shutts & Bowen attorneys Matthew Chait and Sean Smith in West Palm Beach represented the landlord but declined to comment. The barber shop countersued, alleging it lost out on profits because of delayed opening.
The trial lasted two days and featured about 110 exhibits and five witnesses, according to Barakat, who said it would have been a different story if it was business as usual.
"I feel certain that had this trial had been conducted in a courthouse it would have taken longer, and it would have been a larger inconvenience, particularly for the nonparty witnesses, than it was," Barakat said. "Nobody had to wait at all. We texted a witness, he clicked on his computer and turned away from whatever work he was doing, from South Dade, North Dade, Sarasota or Broward, wherever people were chiming in from."
Of course, there was one participant with a sound problem, caused by calling in through a phone and computer simultaneously. But Barakat says he's discovered a hack.
"If you wait until after the meeting has commenced and you join, you'll receive a participant ID, and you can call in from your telephone with your AirPods," he said "That is the best quality sound."
The atmosphere was collaborative and visual aids took center stage in the litigation, Barakat said — now that no one's wheeling in a television, projector or giant cardboard cut-out — though it's important to consider that each participant might have a different sized screen.
"I think the judge and the parties were much more focused on the documents than they were on the witnesses," Barakat said.
"Most of the trial there was a document on the screen, and although everybody's face was also on the screen, I think the attention was more turned to the evidence than on the face of the witness.
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Spencer Eig presided over the case and has yet to rule.
Read more:
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 AllDisbarred Attorney Alleges ADA Violations in Lawsuit Against Miami-Dade Judges
3 minute readDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readChicago Midsize Firm Will Combine With Miami Boutique To Form Antitrust Powerhouse
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Armstrong Teasdale's London Creditors Face Big Losses
- 2Texas Court Invalidates SEC’s Dealer Rule, Siding with Crypto Advocates
- 3Quinn Emanuel Has Thrived in China. Will Trump Help Boost Its Fortunes?
- 4Manufacturer Must Provide Details Surrounding Expert’s Livestreamed Inspection, Fed Court Rules
- 5Waterbury Jury Awards $2 Million Verdict Against Eversource
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