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
© 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
- 1Democracy in Focus: New York State Court of Appeals Year in Review
- 2In Vape Case, A Debate Over Forum Shopping
- 3SDNY Criminal Division Deputy Chief Returns to Debevoise
- 4Brownstein Adds Former Interior Secretary, Offering 'Strategic Counsel' During New Trump Term
- 5Tragedy on I-95: Florida Lawsuit Against Horizon Freight System Could Set New Precedent in Crash Cases
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