Return to normal or embrace the change?

Today's On Appeals column in The Recorder ( by Susan Yorke) is On Appeals: The Surprising Humanity of Remote Work: We talk a lot about when things might “return to normal.” In the context of law practice, it may be worth asking whether they should.

• Remote appellate arguments, in particular, may have some surprising advantages in terms of reflecting our shared humanity. The design of the physical courtroom is intended to create a sense of solemnity, formality, and hierarchy. Judges are elevated above counsel and the public, placed at a distance from the lectern and audience. Counsel tables are on opposite sides of the room in front of the gallery. Appellate practitioners are constantly advised to maintain a conversational tone during argument, but how often do you have a casual conversation with someone who’s 15 feet away and 5 feet above you, while a gaggle of onlookers watch you from behind?
• In a video argument, the judges don’t loom from the bench. Remote meeting technology is a great equalizer—we’re all just boxes on a screen. For new attorneys or those prone to stage fright, remote arguments may encourage participation and help foster the natural dynamic that judges and advocates prefer. Indeed, the video arguments I’ve seen over the past few months have—technological hiccups aside—tended to be more conversational in tone.
• Of course, advocates should continue to maintain some level of formality. Wear a suit (top and bottom!), use a non-distracting background, address judges by their titles, and don’t interrupt. Still, a remote argument really can feel more like a conversation (after all, we chat with our friends on Zoom all the time now), and that helps judges get the information they need to decide their cases.
• Remote arguments also decrease the price of the proverbial “day in court.” For far-flung clients, having the option of a video argument can make a real financial difference. And for public-sector or nonprofit attorneys with limited budgets, eliminating the burden of travel saves time and money and may allow more lawyers to participate in arguments.