Florida Court Sets Rules for Use of Electronic Devices During Remote Proceedings
An administrative order from Miami-Dade Circuit Chief Judge Bertila Soto says that in remote court cases connected by communication equipment, lawyers, the press and the public cannot use electronic devices without the approval of the presiding judge in the case.
April 07, 2020 at 02:28 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Daily Business Review
It is a new world, with remote telephonic hearings now the norm.
And Miami-Dade Circuit Chief Judge Bertila Soto issued new emergency procedures on the use of electronic devices while in a remote courtroom. Lawyers and others who do not comply could face punishment by the court.
Administrative Order No. 20-07 specifies that in remote court cases connected by communication equipment, lawyers, the press and the public cannot use electronic devices without the approval of the presiding judge in the case. The devices include smartphones, cameras, computers, laptops and digital voice recorders. The limitation on the use of these devices applies to using them to make photography, videography and audio recordings.
The order provides that lawyers, the public and the press can use electronic devices, such as cellphones, for sending and receiving written information, like emails and text messages. However, these devices must be either be silent, in vibrate mode, or turned off. Also, while laptops or tablets with regular keyboards are allowed, they must not make noise. In fact, if the electronic device becomes disruptive, the presiding judge can revoke the privilege of the person using it.
"Since we are operating under social distancing requirements issued by the CDC to reduce the likelihood of transmitting COVID-19 among persons, our members of the press can no longer just walk into a courtroom to cover an in-person public court proceeding," Soto said. "In the virtual world, a little more planning is needed."
Soto said the new administrative order is meant to ensure that lawyers, the public and the press can continue accessing virtual court proceedings. It gives clear instructions on how to request access.
That includes news gathers who do not meet the definition of professional journalists, and members of the public who want to access remote hearings. They must contact the court to access a remote hearing at least one business day in advance of the hearing.
The new order by Soto also updates Administrative Order No. 14-02, which took effect in January 2014 and laid out the governing use of electronic devices in court proceedings.
These rules come as the court prefers that "mission critical court matters" and nonessential hearings take place remotely through communication equipment, unless the judge on the case says an in-person court hearing is necessary.
Previously, there was a suspension of having nonessential hearings occur through the use of communication equipment. This changed March 31 with Administrative Order 20-05, as the Miami-Dade courts by necessity became more proficient using Zoom video conferencing technology.
Chief Judge Offers 3 Tips for Lawyers
Soto advises lawyers who will go before any Miami Dade Circuit judge to check the website of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida and its social media, @miamidadecourts, for updates on the use of communications equipment and participation in remote hearings.
Second, the court advises lawyers and litigants to be patient.
"We will be with them," Soto said. "All of us are moving as quickly as possible to learn new technology and get it ready to roll out for regular use in our busy circuit in the near future."
Soto said the court is committed to provide justice to the community while protecting the health of the public, judges and court staff.
Third, lawyers should continue to check the presiding judge's web page.
Soto said in an email, "Depending on the division, there may be specific instructions for remote court proceedings."
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 AllTrending Stories
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