Joël Roy, an attorney at Mercier Leduc specializes in ethics and disciplinary law in the context of medical technologies and AI – he has written the following in The Lawyers Daily:

As trial attorneys, to say our professional (and, often, personal) lives have been turned upside down by COVID-19 would be a major understatement. Postponed trials, anxious clients and a growing sense of helplessness have surely marked our practices in these troubled times. Yet, many of us see the justice system’s increased openness to technology as one potential silver lining. Indeed, courts now seem more and more willing to engage in remote hearings, virtual discovery and e-filing, which is truly something to celebrate amidst the otherwise chaotic state of litigation across the country.

However, with new options always come new responsibilities, and one must surely take a good hard look to see whether these more efficient ways to proceed are always the best thing to do for one’s clients. Sadly, it appears a blanket adoption of technology might be just as mistaken as its total rejection.

Let us take care of the commonsensical first. As a general rule (which always has exceptions), I see very little to argue against remote hearings for matters that only involve questions of law. This would cover about 80 per cent of preliminary motions in civil matters, for which witness testimony and/or the assessment of conflicting evidence is rare. In these cases, technology should be seen as a great tool to streamline the process while increasing access to justice: if dozens of lawyers are not waiting their turn in motions court, it follows that dozens of clients are not paying them to wait.

This time would certainly be better spent in their respective offices, where they could deal with other matters. Now, the downside is obviously that virtual hearings do not allow an effective litigator to “read the bench” as well as she normally would, and personal flair or appeal might be lost over the medium. Overall, however, it appears clear that saving hundreds of dollars on unnecessary and avoidable fees should take precedence over the potential effect of making an impression in a live hearing for most clients.

CLICK HERE to read more.