Effective March 25, New York City Criminal Court initiated its second phase of videoconferencing arraignments. Photo: New York Unified Court System.

With many courts across the country on the cusp of reopening after weeks of COVID-19 related shutdowns, lawyers may finally be able to step away from their webcams and once again greet clients, judges and opposing counsel face-to-face. However, just because remote court tech won't be strictly necessary any more doesn't mean that attorneys are ready to see it go.

In fact, the cost and efficiency gains that processes like remote depositions or hearings afford may be enough to offset any inconveniences in the eyes of law firms and clients. Also, it doesn't hurt that have already spent the last few months getting a crash course in virtual proceedings.

Maia Aron, a commercial litigator with Mark Migdal & Hayden, said that when she attends Zoom hearings, there are sometimes between 40 to 60 lawyers waiting for their turn in front of the judge.

"It's amazing how fast people have adapted," she said.

Aron hopes hearings conducted over Zoom or other video conferencing platforms will continue once the pandemic has resolved, citing the efficiency gains made by sparing attorneys a drive to the courthouse. Instead of sitting in the courtroom lobby waiting for her hearing to begin, she can keep working at her office desk until it's time to begin.

"The other lawyers that I talk to, everyone really likes the new hearings. And I think it has a good impact on the cost of litigation," Aron said.

However, the real cost savings for firms and attorneys may come in the form of virtual depositions. Aron, for instance, was originally scheduled to travel from Florida to Kansas for a deposition, but due to the pandemic opted to complete the process virtually. While saving the cost of airline ticket qualifies as a win, the virtual format can pose some challenges to attorneys for which there is no easy workaround.

Nonverbal cues between attorneys and clients, for instance, are harder to send and detect over a videoconference. Aron gave the example of a lawyer attempting to raise an objection to a question asked during a deposition—before a client begins to answer.

"It's very easy to do when you are sitting next to someone and someone sees you moving [and knows] that you're going to object. But that's hard to do over a computer screen. I don't know how you would do that," she said.

The absence of body language also served as a challenge to Shane Nichols, a litigator with Alston & Bird, who recently presented an argument to the Federal Court of Appeals via teleconference. While the court hosted an orientation prior to the actual call and the proceeding was well organized, Nichols was forced to rely on the tenor of the judge's voice to discern how his argument was landing.

"Generally lawyers want to be able to see what the judge's reactions are both to their arguments and also to their opponent's, but there's no question that you lose that. … [But] I found that the judges were pretty clear about which way they were leaning just by telephone," Nichols said.

Still, he believes the process went better than anyone was expecting and doesn't anticipate teleconference or videoconference proceedings going away any time soon. After all, in a simple case where legal arguments can be articulated as well on paper as they could be orally, clients may be reluctant to shell out the cash for an attorney's travel.

"I would expect that a lot of clients would choose to proceed by teleconference or some other remote means because it would be typically a lot cheaper," Nichols said.