Take home message
Videoconferencing as it is presently implemented in courts frequently does not allow for private attorney-client communications. It is susceptible to technical and other failures, and it is likely it detracts from the quality of attorney-client and other communications in court.
Full report: E. T. Bellone, 2012. “Private Attorney-Client Communication and the Effect of Videoconferencing in the Courtroom.” Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology, vol. 8/1, pp. 24-48.
Link: http://www.jiclt.com/index.php/jiclt/article/view/176/0
Sample: 164 courts in all 50 states in 2010.
The Details
This article analyzes the impact of videoconferencing on all types of court proceedings from a legal and scientific standpoint. Toward the end (in section 5) it reports the results of a national survey conducted in 2010 of courts on their use of videoconferencing. The article concludes that ‘[t]he data…show there is a difference in the quality, indeed even the possibility, of private communications between attorney and client via videoconferencing’ (page 26).
The legal analysis in the article reviews Federal law on the physical presence of client and counsel in court, noting, for example, that Rule 43 of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that a defendant shall be physically present at arraignment. The author then goes on to review other scientific work which suggests that communication mediated by video is qualitatively different, and in some ways inferior, to in-person communication. Videoconferencing may impede trust-building and the effective exchange of information, for example.
The survey data consist of responses from 164 courts from all 50 states, 111 of which used, or planned to use, videoconferencing. The results are shown in the table below. 37% said the confidentiality of attorney-client communications could not be assured. (This number was almost exactly the same – 36% – in criminal cases specifically.) They also reported technical failures and other problems owing to lack of training or ‘buy-in’ from court personnel. Interestingly, the author also reported no improvement in the provision of privacy in newer systems compared to older ones: systems installed within the last ten years were in fact marginally less likely to afford privacy than those over ten years old.
Videoconferencing as it is presently implemented in courts frequently does not allow for private attorney-client communications. It is susceptible to technical and other failures, and it is likely it detracts from the quality of attorney-client and other communications in court.
Full report: E. T. Bellone, 2012. “Private Attorney-Client Communication and the Effect of Videoconferencing in the Courtroom.” Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology, vol. 8/1, pp. 24-48.
Link: http://www.jiclt.com/index.php/jiclt/article/view/176/0
Sample: 164 courts in all 50 states in 2010.
The Details
This article analyzes the impact of videoconferencing on all types of court proceedings from a legal and scientific standpoint. Toward the end (in section 5) it reports the results of a national survey conducted in 2010 of courts on their use of videoconferencing. The article concludes that ‘[t]he data…show there is a difference in the quality, indeed even the possibility, of private communications between attorney and client via videoconferencing’ (page 26).
The legal analysis in the article reviews Federal law on the physical presence of client and counsel in court, noting, for example, that Rule 43 of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that a defendant shall be physically present at arraignment. The author then goes on to review other scientific work which suggests that communication mediated by video is qualitatively different, and in some ways inferior, to in-person communication. Videoconferencing may impede trust-building and the effective exchange of information, for example.
The survey data consist of responses from 164 courts from all 50 states, 111 of which used, or planned to use, videoconferencing. The results are shown in the table below. 37% said the confidentiality of attorney-client communications could not be assured. (This number was almost exactly the same – 36% – in criminal cases specifically.) They also reported technical failures and other problems owing to lack of training or ‘buy-in’ from court personnel. Interestingly, the author also reported no improvement in the provision of privacy in newer systems compared to older ones: systems installed within the last ten years were in fact marginally less likely to afford privacy than those over ten years old.
| Issue | Number | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| No provision for private attorney-client communications | 41 | 37% |
| Experienced technical faliures | 41 | 37% |
| Experienced other failues e.g. operature failure, scheduling problems, inadequate training | 25 | 23% |
| Total | 111 | 100% |
Subscribe: