Printer Friendly

Telephonic Court Appearances: An Easy Way to Reduce Litigation Costs

By Robert V. Alvarado, Jr., and Mark S. Wapnick

Each day, thousands of  lawyers travel to court to make brief appearances that may not actually require their physical presence in the courtroom. There are countless case management, status and trial setting conferences as well as show cause hearings and motions that easily fall into this category. Travel costs associated with such appearances are staggering. At today’s high hourly rates, even 30 minutes of lawyer travel time that can be avoided means substantial savings to cost-conscious clients. Many judges and court administrators have recognized that telephonic court appearances in appropriate circumstances offer an efficient way to reduce unnecessary travel time for lawyers.

While the concept of appearing telephonically has been around for decades,it has only been in the last ten years that organized methods have been widely implemented to make the process uniform and improve the technical quality of the calls. This process has been greatly aided by the creation of public-private partnerships that call for “turn-key” systems to be installed and operated by private enterprise, thus allowing cash strapped courts to utilize state-of-the-art equipment and proven scheduling methods at no cost to the court. In a classic “win-win-win” scenario, lawyers save time and personal wear and tear, clients save substantial fees for unnecessary travel time, and courts reduce not only the cost of litigation, but also vehicles on the road and air pollution. There are several tips to keep in mind when establishing an effective telephonic court appearance program:

1. INSTALL AND UTILIZE APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY

Prior attempts at telephonic appearance programs often failed because courts did not utilize appropriate technology. Using the wrong speaker phone equipment usually results in “voice clipping” which is a major irritant to judges who are trying to work through a busy calendar. Also, attempting to merge a variety of different conferencing technologies usually results in inconsistent call quality, another major impediment to judicial satisfaction. Successful programs include the following technology:

• Appropriate full duplex speaker phone equipment properly placed in the courtroom and/or chambers;
• Electronically amplified audio conferencing with substantial port capacity to permit multiple callers and multiple cases to be simultaneously routed through one central electronic phone “pipe.” These requirements are particularly important in courts that have calendar calls with multiple cases scheduled for the same time. Ad hoc methods of telephonic appearance do not work in this situation because only one call at a time can get through on the court’s telephone line.

Using appropriate electronically amplified commercial audio conferencing not only ensures the consistent quality of the call, but also offers the benefit of one central electronic “pipe” in which all callers on all cases can be brought together (just as they are brought together in the courtroom) and then individual case business can be handled while others wait for their cases to be called. For matters requiring privacy, sub-conferencing is available off of the main electronic “pipe.” Top quality full duplex speaker phone equipment is readily available on the market and solves the problem of voice clipping. Generally, the equipment is hooked up to a stand alone phone line so as to not tie up any of the court’s existing phone lines. In the public-private partnerships mentioned above, the private enterprise supplies all required teleconferencing, speakerphone equipment and phone lines at no cost to the court, and charges and collects a reasonable fee from the lawyers who use the service. In addition, the private enterprise does all the scheduling for the telephonic court appearances using methods preapproved by the court.

2. EACH JUDGE SHOULD DETERMINE THE TYPES OF PROCEEDINGS FOR WHICH TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE WILL BE PERMITTED

Each judge should maintain full authority over which types of proceedings can and will be suitable for telephonic appearances. A properly established and administered program can be tailored to the needs of each judge. Appropriate interviewing of the judge and courtroom staff at the front end makes this possible.

3. TELEPHONIC COURT APPEARANCES SHOULD BE MADE A PART OF EACH JUDGE'S REGULAR CALENDAR

In order for a telephonic court appearance program to flourish, it must be voluntary and permit attorneys to have full discretion as to when to use it (assuming the judge has already pre-approved telephonicappearance). If lawyers must beconcerned about a special time for telephonic appearances, the needed flexibility is lost. When telephonic appearances are made a part of the regular calendar and are heard just as in-person appearances, they permit the lawyers to more easily make their decisions. If the equipment and conferencing techniques are appropriate, it should make no difference if the attorney is on the phone or in person.

4. SCHEDULING AND BILLING MATTERS SHOULD BE HANDLED BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN BUSY COURTROOM STAFF

Most courtroom clerks and assistants are already busy enough. Accordingly, the job of scheduling the attorneys for their telephonic court appearances and charging and collecting fees from them should not be assigned to courtroom staff unless the courtroom pace is slow enough to provide the time and attention to these duties. In the public-private partnerships, all of those tasks are handled by the private enterprise, with pre-arranged methods for timely delivering to court staff appropriate lists of those attorneys who will be appearing telephonically. If done internally by the court, it should be done most often by someone other than the courtroom staff.

5. A TELEPHONIC COURT APPEARANCE IS MORE THAN A CONFERENCE CALL WITH THE COURT

While many telephone systems allow for limited conferencing, they do not allow for the type of wide-scale participation that is often required by courts. Similarly, while any teleconference service can connect a “conference call,” most generally lack the procedures and background necessary to recognize that there is a world of difference between a generic “conference call” and a court appearance conducted by telephone. Likewise, a court’s reliance upon internal or generic conferencing is usually of limited success. Coordination is the key and coordination is something cash-strapped and understaffed courts often prefer not to be troubled with. This is also why it is not enough for a court to simply go out and buy the technology (assuming it had the budget to do so), as without the coordination and scheduling, the usage does not grow and the phone becomes little more than an expensive paperweight.

6. IF THE MAJORITY OF ATTORNEYS STILL APPEAR IN PERSON, YOUR COURT-RUN TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE PROGRAM CAN BE IMPROVED

Often, busy judges, administrators and clerks believe that since they periodically allow telephonic appearances when requested, they have a fully functional telephonic appearance program and there is nothing more to do. The cost and time saving benefits are only maximized when the greatest number of attorneys who can reasonably appear telephonically, do so. The goal should be to have as many attorneys as possible appear telephonically on the types of proceedings the court deems appropriate.

7. DO NOT DELAY FOR FEAR OF INSTALLATION COST OR HEADACHE

Unlike many technology-related initiatives, telephonic court appearance programs can be operational in a few weeks or even days. The phones plug into standard power and an analog phone line that is provided either by the court or by a vendor. Months of planning, analysis and review are not required.

Attorneys Robert V. Alvarado, Jr., and Mark S. Wapnick, are the principals and co-founders of CourtCall, LLC (www.CourtCall.com) which created the first “turn-key” telephonic court appearance program in 1996. They provide services to courts in over 40 states and have facilitated in excess of 800,000 telephonic court appearances. CourtCall is an industry member of FACT, the Forumon the Advancement of Court Technology(http://fact.ncsc.dni.us).