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
© 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 AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Pusillanimous Press
- 2Contract Lifecycle Management Company ContractPodAi Unveils Leah Drive
- 3'Great News' for Businesses? Judge Halts Transparency Mandate
- 4Consilio Announces ‘Native AI Review,’ Expanding Its Gen AI E-Discovery Offerings
- 5Federal Judge Hits US With $227,000 Sanction for Discovery Misconduct
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