'Viewed as a Success': Florida Supreme Court Sets Second Round of Virtual Arguments
After a one-day experiment under its belt, the state's high court will go virtual again for three days of arguments in June.
May 13, 2020 at 12:05 PM
4 minute read
Things went so well — or at least well enough — in the first experiment with remote Florida Supreme Court arguments that the justices will do it again in June.
The May 6 experimental calendar was intentionally limited, but the high court set a three-day schedule of virtual hearings for June 2-4.
The Florida court's Zoom video conferencing is a leg up on the U.S. Supreme Court's conferences by phone. Wednesday was the sixth and final day of virtual arguments centered in Washington and spread over two weeks.
The Florida arguments are part of Chief Justice Charles Canady's push to restore more court operations during the coronavirus pandemic, and one of the assignments for a task force he created is to research long-term remote court concepts.
In the near term, 14 cases are on the tentative June argument calendar.
"The historic May 6 arguments were widely viewed as a success," the court said in a statement Wednesday. Supreme Court Justices and attorneys interacted with each other using Zoom teleconferencing software and backgrounds plucked from the courtroom.
Akerman partner Katherine Giddings, deputy chair of the law firm's litigation group, argued on the first virtual hearing day, and she commended the court for organizing its novel approach.
"This was not easy to do. They had to create a whole system to do this," she said. For instance, a court employee flew a camera-equipped drone in the empty courtroom ahead of the hearing to snag of photo of the bench to use as a faux background when the justices were speaking.
"There was some fading in and out, and there was garbling of some of my answers," she said. Some of Giddings' face also disappeared during her appearance using a laptop in her Tallahassee office.
She offered some pointers — use a hard-wired desktop rather than a wireless device, stand up and preferably at a podium, and mute your microphone when not speaking.
To allow public access, the arguments are shared to the court's existing livestream feeds, which include a Facebook Live channel.
"This system allows broad worldwide public access while minimizing security problems associated with public teleconferencing," the court statement said.
Once again, the clerk's office will work with attorneys in advance to help them set up and test their remote Zoom connections. Justices and lawyers are in separate locations and share the software platform for live questions and answers after 175 years of in-person hearings.
The court prides itself on its tech-friendly approach after approving the nation's first televised trial for Miami murder defendant Ronny Zamora in 1977. The first blockbuster trial on live TV was serial killer Ted Bundy's 1979 double-murder case, also in Miami.
On the appellate side, the Florida Supreme Court began livestreaming full oral arguments in 1997 and was the first appellate court in the nation to routinely broadcast its arguments on Facebook Live starting in 2018.
At Canady's direction, other Florida courts are still operating in essential-only mode with very limited in-person hearings and no jury trials at least through July 6. South Florida federal courts are operating under the same calendar with chief judges allowing for extensions.
Read more:
In History-Making First Online Arguments, Florida Supreme Court Tackles Marijuana Legalization
Chief Justice Canady Releases 'Best Practices' for Florida Courts Amid COVID-19
Florida State Courts Extend Coronavirus Outage Into July
For 'Safe Return,' Task Force to Guide Gradual Reopening of Florida Courts
|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 AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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