Zoom Trials: Same Dog, New Tricks
Blank Rome business litigation partner William Dorsey shares what he learned from a recent, two-day contested evidentiary hearing--including the need to wear pants.
May 27, 2020 at 06:14 PM
5 minute read
Whether they are a temporary adaptation to the Covid-19 pandemic or the new normal, socially distanced video trials and arbitrations are now a reality. While many traditional trial skills are transferrable to this format, you will have to learn some new techniques to be an effective advocate on video.
Here are some of my observations from a recent, two-day contested evidentiary hearing:
"Pin" the witness to your screen
When conducting direct or cross examinations, pin the witness' video so that you can see a full screenshot of the person's face.
Every good trial lawyer knows the power of eye contact and facial expressions. Expanding the video of the witness to full screen will allow you to pick up on cues, build rapport with your own witnesses, focus questioning, and give you control of an adverse witness—the gold standard of effective cross-examination. I was surprised at how well the tried and true tactics work, even through a computer screen. In some instances, the format—and the close-up shot of the witness—makes them even more effective.
Organize and arrange delivery of exhibits in advance
Decide on a format for trial exhibits and ensure that you have an effective way of delivering them to the witness, court, and opposing counsel before trial begins. And then confirm everything again before starting. Nothing interrupts the flow of an examination quite like a witness—or worse, an attorney—trying to download an exhibit or open an email.
In a recent video trial, we used a single pdf format with bookmarked exhibits that allowed the parties to jump from exhibit to exhibit in a single document. It proved more effective than a folder of exhibits, which entailed multiple tabs and downloads. Whatever you decide to use, practice it beforehand and download everything to your computer.
Keep your poker face
A computer camera is on you at all times, and you cannot tell who has pinned or expanded the view of your face. It is never a good idea to drop your jaw when your client makes a damaging admission. It is even worse when there is a camera trained on your face.
No creative video backgrounds
Make sure that you and your witnesses have a semi-professional video background and are not backlit. No one wants to look up at your nostrils or have a view of your bed.
Look into the camera
The camera is the window into the courtroom. When you are looking at other screens or up into space during argument or questioning, you appear aloof or uninterested. I ended up printing my closing argument outline so that I was not looking up at a second screen and away from the judge and other participants.
Communicate with your colleagues
Establish a dedicated line of communication with co-counsel through text or instant message. One of the hardest things to get used to in a remote trial is not having your colleagues in the courtroom with you. Set up an electronic communication system to use during examinations so that you do not forget a line of questioning or miss an important follow up.
Use your telephone for audio
Dial into the trial using your telephone, not the built in audio function with Zoom or Skype. Preferably a landline. I ordered one for the first time in more than 10 years expressly for this purpose. Occasional freeze ups are fine when conversing with friends, but they are distracting and problematic when questioning witnesses or making arguments to the court.
Do not use a speaker phone
It can break up and cut off sentences. Invest in a pair of wireless headphones and recharge them during breaks or, better yet, have a spare pair.
Mute your line
Remember to mute your line as soon as the court orders a recess. Invariably someone will make an unfortunate comment during a break. You should also mute your line whenever you're not speaking. This includes during defense of examinations. Unmute your line only to make objections. It is better to raise a late objection than to have the entire courtroom hearing you typing or shuffling papers.
Wear pants
By now, everyone has seen the unfortunate videos of people wearing a suit only from the waist up. During the course of a day, you will forget to turn off your computer's camera before standing up. I will admit that I skipped the dress shoes though.
Finally, if you have a Zoom profile picture, delete it or make sure that it is something you would not mind having the judge and your opposing counsel view. There are some things you cannot unsee.
William Dorsey, a partner in the Business Litigation Department at Blank Rome LLP, focuses his practice on high-stakes commercial disputes involving commercial finance, real estate, M&A, and intellectual property. He can be reached at [email protected] or 312-776-2512.
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 AllHelping Lawyers Move Away from ‘Grinding’ and Toward a ‘Flow’
Why Litigation Demand Might Break Firms’ Boom-and-Bust Cycle
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
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