E-Filing May Have Taken Years to Catch On in Texas, But Zoom's Already Skyrocketed
"We're much further ahead than most other states," said David Slayton, administrative director of the Texas Office of Court Administration. "People have seen our experience, and heard from our judges, saying, 'This absolutely works.' Then they say, 'Let's do it.' "
May 19, 2020 at 01:37 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Texas Lawyer
Electronic filing took years to roll out to all levels of the Texas judiciary.
But judges started using Zoom for their court hearings after only 10 days.
In eight weeks, the use of the technology has skyrocketed, according to data from the Texas Office of Court Administration.
Information about the number of Zoom meetings and participants shows that Texas judges rapidly embraced the video conferencing technology during a time that courts had few other options since courthouses were closed to visitors because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
"We're much further ahead than most other states," said the office's administrative director, David Slayton, who has studied other state courts' virus response as a member of the Conference of Chief Justices' pandemic rapid response team. "People have seen our experience, and heard from our judges, saying, 'This absolutely works.' Then they say, 'Let's do it.' They are all doing the same things we are doing."
Slayton explained that the Texas Supreme Court on March 13 issued its first COVID-19 emergency order, which authorized courts to hold remote hearings, among other things. Ten days later, on March 23, the office had rolled out the video conferencing software to the judiciary.
On that first day, Texas judges together held 101 Zoom meetings. The peak number of meetings—1,083—happened May 14. That's a 972% increase in about eight weeks. There's a dip in the number every Friday.
|
Hover your cursor over the graphic
Source: Texas Office of Court Administration. Note: In one Zoom meeting, a judge can hold multiple hearings on different cases. The Texas Office of Court Administration conservatively estimates that every one meeting represents at least four hearings. Graphic: Angela Morris/ALM
As the number of Zoom meetings skyrocketed, so did the number of people who were participating in those meetings. The number went from 1,821 on March 24 to 12,067 on May 14, which is a 563% increase in participants.
|
Hover your cursor over the graphic
Source: Texas Office of Court Administration. Graphic: Angela Morris/ALM
Judges often use one Zoom meeting to call multiple cases for hearings. The administrative office has a conservative estimate that each Zoom meeting represents at least four hearings. Using that estimate, Slayton said that between 80,000 to 100,000 hearings have taken place over video conference during the pandemic.
Zoom uptake has been slower for judges in municipal, justice of the peace and child support courts because they need to snail mail hearing notices to the often pro se individuals in their cases. But other judges are handling between 60% and 80% of their dockets with the technology, he said.
Even after the coronavirus passes, and courtrooms open fully for in-person proceedings, Slayton said that Zoom will have a place in the Texas judiciary. Judges may allow a remote proceeding so that a lawyer won't have to travel from Dallas to Houston for a 30-minute hearing, for example. Video appearances may remain an option to save a witness or litigant from having to take off work and travel to the courthouse.
"It at least will be made available and maybe used regularly. Judges have seen they can be very efficient with it," Slayton said about Zoom. "I think we will see hearings back in the courtroom consistently."
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 AllLegaltech Rundown: Clarra Upgrades its Case Management Platform, Veritext Launches AI Summarization Tool, and More
How Gen AI Is Changing Legal Work for In-House Counsel
'We're Back': Fourth Circuit Considers Certification of Marriott Data Breach Class ... Again
5 minute readTexas Social Media Law: Federal Circuit Gives Trial Court Instructions
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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