Everyone Wins With Zoom Motion Calendar (Except the Loser)
There is no better place to start than the unceremonious elimination of in-person state court motion calendar. It is rare that we are presented with such an elegant solution to such a pervasive problem.
May 07, 2020 at 12:35 PM
4 minute read
Well, it took a pandemic, but lawyers have finally figured out how to use Zoom. Now we need to use this newfound superpower for good, not evil.
And there is no better place to start than the unceremonious elimination of in-person state court motion calendar. It is rare that we are presented with such an elegant solution to such a pervasive problem. For those nonlitigators out there, motion calendar in state court goes something like this: Rule number 1—we do not talk about motion calendar. Rule number 2— each side has no more than two minutes and 30 seconds to argue. Some judges enforce this rule, some do not. Generally speaking and based solely on personal experience (but I would be very curious if anyone has actually figured this out), the average motion calendar argument tends to be between five and 10 minutes. Rule number 3—because the matter is only supposed to take five minutes, most motion-calendar hearings involve the more pedestrian aspects of our practice such as, motions for enlargements of time, smaller discovery disputes, or unopposed matters. Generally, this means that the outcome will not make or break a party's position. Rule number 4—motion calendars are set for blocks of time, usually a few times a week, and typically cover anywhere from 10 to 30 separate hearings. If you couple this with rule number 5 —you never know whether you will be the first or last to go until you're there— you can expect to sit more than two hours before your number is called.
As a practical matter, this means that clients are often billed for two to three hours for what should be a five-minute hearing.
Yet over the past few weeks, lawyers in my, and other firms around South Florida have participated in Zoom hearing after Zoom hearing and an incredible thing happened: it worked—efficiently. Our judges and court administrators have worked hard and deserve a tremendous amount of credit for launching this program fairly seamlessly. Sure, there was the occasional outburst from a dog or a child. Yes, some are struggling to find the mute button, and others are certain that the only way you can be heard is if your forehead is pressed against the camera. But we can do this, Florida. And more importantly, we should do this.
The first rule of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure instructs us to construe the rules "to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action." Under the Florida Rules of Professional Responsibility, fees charged to clients must be reasonable. While in the past we may have felt that we did not have a choice but to bill clients for three hours to attend a five-minute motion calendar hearing, we have—against all odds—fallen backwards into finding a better way.
As the president of The Florida Bar noted last week, moving motion calendars to Zoom permanently is "going to help everybody." And he is right. Clients will get lower bills for the same work. Lawyers will have more time to spend working on other matters or … not working. The polar ice caps will not melt as quickly because we are not spending as much time in our cars, which in turn will result in lower sea levels and higher property values in Miami. And most importantly, judges will finally be able to do what they only dared to dream about for years—mute lawyers.
To be sure, there are some things I will miss about motion calendar. I will miss sharing an elevator with 35 other attorneys on my way to the courtroom. I will miss not being able to see the judge's face when I argue because my podium is behind a pillar. I will miss that allergic tickle in my nose when I walk into a courtroom that is probably unsafe for use. And of course, I will miss seeing my colleagues cursing in the hallways after a hearing that went haywire. But it's a small price to pay for the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.
Etan Mark is co-founder of Florida boutique litigation law firm Mark Migdal & Hayden. A commercial litigator, he serves clients in multiple jurisdictions involved in complex business disputes. His clients include public and private companies, real estate developers, investors and owners, tech entrepreneurs, gaming operators, family offices, hotels and banks.
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
© 2025 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 AllLeveraging the Power of Local Chambers of Commerce: A Second-Career Lawyer’s Guide to Building a Thriving Practice
5 minute readCFPB Proposes Rule to Regulate Data Brokers Selling Sensitive Information
5 minute readEssential Labor Shifts: Navigating Noncompetes, Workplace Politics and the AI Revolution
Trending Stories
- 1Relaxing Penalties on Discovery Noncompliance Allows Criminal Cases to Get Decided on Merit
- 2Reviewing Judge Merchan's Unconditional Discharge
- 3With New Civil Jury Selection Rule, Litigants Should Carefully Weigh Waiver Risks
- 4Young Lawyers Become Old(er) Lawyers
- 5Caught In the In Between: A Legal Roadmap for the Sandwich Generation
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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