Illinois Supreme Court Amends Policy on Remote Court Appearances
Chief Justice Mary Jane Theis and the Illinois Supreme Court announced today amendments to the Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Remote Court Appearances in Civil Proceedings (Policy) which are intended to give courts and justice partners concrete tools to enhance and improve their existing remote court practices.
“The ability to attend court remotely helps increase access to justice in both urban and rural areas,” Chief Justice Theis said. “These amendments will help Illinois’ courts continue to improve the remote court experience.”
The amended Policy reaffirms the Illinois Supreme Court’s commitment to remote court appearances in many different types of circuit court proceedings, particularly for non-evidentiary and uncontested matters, and the various benefits remote court appearances offer judges, court staff, lawyers, litigants, and other court users. These amendments shorten the Policy in length, reduce redundancies with Supreme Court Rule 45 and its Committee Comments, and expand its applicability to all circuit court proceedings.
“The last five years have shown us that while people want to participate in their court cases, all too often, they must choose between going to court or risk losing their wages or jobs, find alternative childcare, or expend significant resources and time to travel to the courthouse,” said Judge Jorge L. Ortiz, Chair of the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Access to Justice (ATJ). “Remote court appearances make these decisions a little easier, and it is incredible to see people accessing justice from public libraries, workplace break rooms, and hospitals. The Supreme Court’s ongoing commitment to meet the community where it is at through remote court appearances is admirable and inspiring.”
The Illinois Supreme Court adopted the current Policy in 2020, with the COVID-19 pandemic significantly accelerating the adoption of remote technologies. Beginning in 2023, the Commission on Access to Justice’s Remote Appearance Committee (Committee) started reviewing the Policy with the goal of making it a closer reflection of the current remote court appearance landscape in Illinois circuit courts.
Moreover, the Committee updated the bench card on Remote Court Appearances in Circuit Courts. This two-page resource is a helpful reference for judges making decisions about remote appearances from the bench.
The amended Policy was proposed by ATJ. ATJ is focused on helping self-represented litigants, limited English proficient litigants, and litigants with a disability access courts while also supporting the judiciary and other court staff in ensuring justice for all.
(FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: James Brunner, Public Information Officer of the Illinois Supreme Court at 217.208.3354 or jbrunner@illinoiscourts.gov.)
Member Comments (9)
In Cook County some of the Arbitration hearings are remote. The Arbitrators can observe the litigants, and the litigants can see the Arbitrators. Access to the hearings can be by cell phone, telephone or computer. There is no reason to not allow contested hearings by remote means if both sides agree.
Many Judges insist "we are now live and in person only" even for routine status reports. It is problematic for lawyers to argue with a Judge that S.Ct Rule 45 requires/suggests the remote option.
Remote proceedings is beneficial on multiple levels and should be promoted by the judiciary.
Completely agree that remote hearings should be embraced by the court. On two occasions: I had to drive 90 miles one way to a county courthouse, another was 45 miles one way, just to get an uncontested order for expungement signed, a civil proceeding!
The resistance to remote hearings for such routine hearings ought to be examined by the applicable IL Sup Ct Committee.
Remote court appearances offer efficiencies to litigants, attorneys, and the courts. Remote court allows attorneys to virtually "attend" court in counties around the state. Avoiding the associated travel time will increase access to justice by reducing the time expended for each court appearance.
It is 2025. This remaining judicial resistance is not justified. I had damages a 3-hour damages trial several years ago before Sr. Judge Joan Lefkow in NDIL. She resisted but it went well--me in my Phoenix office, opposing counsel in Myrtle Beach, SC, the insurance adjuster witness in Calfornia, and Lefkow in her Chambers. The witness dropped out once but was back on in less than five minutes. Lefkow came away impressed with the experience.
Remote appearances should be allowed for contested motion hearings--the parties generally file everything ahead of time, so the requirement for a personal appearance makes little sense
Remote appearances continues to remain unavailable in many courtrooms. Some rooms already have the television apparatus in place for Zoom appearances when it was installed during COVID, but subsequently turned off when the COVID emergency ended.
To enable Justice For All (hence, lower litigation costs for everyone), Zoom video should be the norm absent good cause (read: overrule tech-resisting judges and ensure all courtooms are equipped to enable same). This is especially justified for motion hearings where the parties have had a chance to e-file their pre-hearing motions/briefs.
To further enable Equal Justice (i.e., not just for the well-to-do), the rule must authorize Zoom-participant recording absent good cause to deny that. Ditto for free, online public spectator access.
All can appreciate why: It's simply too easy for State Court judges to indulge in "home cooking," arbitrary rulings, especially in cases where a litigant lacks the funds to pay for record-prep, transcripts, and other appeal costs. With open video recording ("The whole world is watching!"), voters will be better equipped to weed out incompetent, biased and just plain nasty judges at the ballot box.
The recent enhancement of Remote Hearings is an extremely important benefit to the Adminsitration of Justice. The amended rules afford those with disabities, medical problems, the need for transportation, older attorneys and litigants, and those in rural areas with better access to the Courts. From a cost analysis, the savings to those with litigation will be a major consumer benefit in terms of cost savings requiring travel and attorneys billable hours will benefit their clients. In Chicago motion Courts, neither litigants or attorneys will be required to spend 2 hours waiting for a 10 miinute status call or waiting to the end of a call for a contested Motion to be heard. Although many individuals believe the Pandemic is over there is still a risk of Covid-19 exposure. Those with immune compromised systems or who may have a person living in one's home who is required to avoid infectious disease, the opportunity of an attorney or a litigant appearing remotely is a life saving reasonable cause for permitting remote hearings, I applaud the Supreme Court's understanding of the changes to the practice of law that have emmerged since the onset of the Pandemic. Arbitration, Mediation, discovery, most settlement conferences, transactional matters, Estate Planning, and Real Estate transactions are all being conducted remotey. The remote practice of law is the new reality.