���˶���

Contact             
Carl Rauscher             
Director of Communications and Media Relations             
rauscherc@lsc.gov      
202-295-1615 �į�į�į�į�į�į�į�į�į�į�į

Contact Us �į�į�į�į�į�į�į�į�į�į

WASHINGTON—Legal aid leaders from Florida and Illinois reflect on four years of remote court and consider the benefits and limits of virtual appearances, as well as the inconsistent policies surrounding them on  of LSC’s “Talk Justice” podcast, released today. Host Lee Rawles is joined by Clarissa Gaff, executive director of Land of Lincoln Legal Aid in Illinois; John Martino, director of litigation at Community Legal Services of Mid-Florida; and Leslie Powell-Boudreaux, executive director of Legal Services of North Florida. 

Lee Rawles, assistant managing editor at the ABA Journal and host of the podcast “The Modern Law Library,” joins “Talk Justice” as a host for the first time. Rawles asks the guests to describe how the availability of remote court has changed in their service areas in the years since 2020. 

“The Illinois Supreme Court has granted courts a great deal of discretion to decide whether or not they're going to allow remote proceedings—it may depend on the subject area, what's being conducted and things like that,” Gaff says. “It really, really depends: some courts don't allow it at all and some judges don't allow it at all either. And then in other instances, it's fully operational in the courthouse throughout every courtroom for every proceeding.”

Powell-Boudreaux and Martino say that the same kind of inconsistency is present in Florida, depending mostly on judges’ preferences. Powell-Boudreaux explains that courts in rural counties were the slowest to take up remote proceedings at the start.

“I think there's some cultural differences in rural counties where they value that face-to-face contact and want to see people in person, and I think that was one of the reasons why that was delayed and some of that has continued—they want that face-to-face,” Powell-Boudreaux says.

This presents a barrier to access, she explains, as public transportation is usually absent in these communities. She says that judges are not only offering remote court inconsistently, they’re also requiring different processes to request it.

Illinois conducted a two-year pilot program using remote court to conserve the limited time and resources of Land of Lincoln Legal Aid attorneys, who at times were driving three hours to court each way. Gaff explained that especially for short, simple hearings that can last all of five minutes, the demand on the attorneys’ time was immense and prevented them from serving more clients.

During this pilot, the legal aid attorneys were able to appear remotely 467 times in courts across nine counties, saving them 633 hours of driving time from 18,500 miles not driven. The reduced mileage also saved the organization about $11,000.

“That means we could represent 50 more people fully in an order of protection hearing, or alternatively, we could provide strong, robust advice to 250 people who are facing eviction—and that may be their only chance at getting an attorney,” Gaff says.

Since the pilot ended in June of 2023, there has been a backslide in remote court availability in the area. Gaff says that judges could use more help managing remote court and agrees with Powell-Boudreaux that rural courthouses often prefer that people to come in person.

Martino explains that remote court is a nice option when it’s available and preferred by the client, but it isn’t something the attorneys in his service area rely on. Some clients don’t feel comfortable with technology or their case type is better handled in person, and in those cases Martino wants in-person hearings to always remain available.

“We want to promote a multi-door approach into the court system,” says Martino.

“You have to think about it as a litigator, as well, and what is going to be the most effective way for your client to put their case forward,” he continues. “For some clients it is more important to be in the courthouse and have their day in court than any kind of conveniences they may receive from being remote—there is a power to being in a courtroom with a judge.”

Powell-Boudreaux agrees, especially in sensitive family law and domestic violence cases, people may not feel as comfortable testifying in a virtual space where it is not always clear who is able to hear them.

“I think there's some hard discussions that we as lawyers have to have with our clients about the pros and cons of each of these options and making sure that we're, as John said, setting them up with the best presentation of the evidence that they have while protecting all of those other aspects of the case at the same time,” says Powell-Boudreaux.

Gaff says that the physical limitations of clients also play a part in their ability to access courts—especially when the buildings are without modern accessibility features like elevators. Gaff knows clients who have felt humiliated and exhausted having to get to their courtroom in a chair lift. The National Center for State Courts  that people feel that court is the most fair and accessible when they are able to choose between remote and in-person proceedings.

Talk Justice episodes are  and on Spotify, Stitcher, Apple and other popular podcast apps. The podcast is sponsored by LSC’s Leaders Council.   

The next episode of LSC’s podcast will explore the impact of medical collections cases on court dockets.