'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
© 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 AllPlaintiffs Attorneys Awarded $113K on $1 Judgment in Noise Ordinance Dispute
4 minute readUS Judge Cannon Blocks DOJ From Releasing Final Report in Trump Documents Probe
3 minute readRead the Document: DOJ Releases Ex-Special Counsel's Report Explaining Trump Prosecutions
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Court Holds Accident with Post Driver Was 'Bizarre Occurrence,' Dismisses Action Brought Under Labor Law §240
- 2Judge Recommends Disbarment for Attorney Who Plotted to Hack Judge's Email, Phone
- 3Two Wilkinson Stekloff Associates Among Victims of DC Plane Crash
- 4Two More Victims Alleged in New Sean Combs Sex Trafficking Indictment
- 5Jackson Lewis Leaders Discuss Firm's Innovation Efforts, From Prompt-a-Thons to Gen AI Pilots
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