COMING TODAY (THURSDAY) AT 5PM- JAC ATTACK AND WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH PROSECUTOR AND A CHICKEN?
Now there is a move afoot by those who wear black and sit above the rest of us to end zoom court.
Why? Because it's easier for clients and attorneys and that rubs those who wear black robes the wrong way.
Judges are grumbling (ever wonder what they teach at those "judicial colleges"? "Grumbling" is a course) that lawyers aren't showing up on time, clients aren't showing up at all, and there is a general lack of respect.
A couple of Rumpole thoughts.
Has the administration of justice stopped? Have trials stopped occurring? Have pleas stopped?
We think not.
The only thing that has happened is that lawyers can sit in their offices or palatial homes and Zoom from court to court and not have the 45 minute commute to court, and the 45 minute commute back. The environment is better for this- less carbon emissions. Clients are better off- they don't lose time off from work and that makes Judges nuts- not being able to inconvenience people and impose their importance on people's lives. If they are not the most important part of a person's day, then their existence, in their own minds, is diminished.
Maybe that is too harsh, but then again, consider the source- Rumpole,
If there is reason under those robes, then do not end Zoom Court.
If you read the news and see that Covid/ Omicron is ripping through this country at an alarming rate, then don't end Zoom Court.
But if your day is centered around supplicants coming before you, laughing at bad jokes, and bowing deeply when asking for a re-set of a case, then end Zoom Court.
There should be a vote on this by the Judges. And the vote should be made public.
Because the public votes as well, and if you proudly want to end Zoom Court then put a line through a Z and wear it as a badge. Stand up and be counted.
I'm just gonna be late in person...
ReplyDeleteSpot on. Kings and Queens need a court and court jesters. And they are miserable with just a few people in their courtrooms. This is all about them.
ReplyDeleteFind out who wants to end Zoom court and then publicize it in upcoming elections. We vote. If you do away with zoom you will lose your spot and then you can drive to court like the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteRumpole has spies. Please let us know just who wants to end zoom. I have donations to make and not make.
I've only been late to zoom court for the same reason I was late to in person court. Because I was stuck in another courtroom.
ReplyDeleteAny of the current judges who have started within the last two years have no recollecion of 10 attorneys lined up at the podium all waiting to have a case called. Or not even being able to get in the door because of the number of attorneys and defendants already in the courtroom.
And then seeing an attorney leave, because that Judge's 9:15 calendar was just starting and it was already 9:35 and the Judge in 5-1 or 5-7 or 2-11 expected you there when the calendar started - even though there was a line of 10 attorneys ahead of you waiting to have their cases called. And then finishing a calendar and realizing an attorney who walked in several times that morning isn't there by the end of the calendar because they're in the courtroom next door.
I hated the days when I had only 1 or 2 soundings an hour apart. It took me an hour to drive to REG, several dollars for parking, to wait in line at a podium to announce ready. Then wait another hour to announce ready on a 2nd case. Then an hour drive back to my office. For maybe 5 minutes of 'practicing law.' What a waste.
Video hearings are so much more efficient and the thought of ending it on a large scale for all hearing types is absolutely ridiculous.
Judges,
ReplyDeleteYou guys are pampered poodles. You seem less interested in us than yourselves.
You're public servants. You serve us. We don't serve you.
Make my life easier and not harder.
This does not apply to great people like Andrea Wolfson....
If not, we find a Hispanic female to run against you. Yup We can do that.
Shumie doomie doomie ZOOM!!!!!
ReplyDeleteTeresa Pooler is getting rid of zoom except Wednesdays. Who else?
ReplyDeleteIt should be public. Any judge that ends zoom will have an opponent, preferably a Hispanic female. Ending zoom is a sign of a big ego (not good for a judge anyway)
ReplyDeleteWho????
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Let those judges who want to end Zoom publicly say it and stand by the decision. But let those who would hide in the shadows be dragged out into the light. It's interesting how some judges "bend" rules but lawyers must be perfect.
ReplyDeleteJudge Ted Mastos deserves to be in the Justice Building Hall of Fame. He is truly one of the GREATS … and he has a heart of gold. God bless you Teddy.
ReplyDeleteAre the judges that are complaining the same attorneys that have never practiced in the private sector? Then that would make sense for them to complain. They don't understand what it is to run to different courtrooms and different counties for court. In the alternative, the judges should make a list for the next 3 weeks of the repeat offenders. They have the option of telling the person directly that they may have their zoom privileges revoked or escalate to the defense bar or supervisors if any. The defense bar as a whole should not be punished for the few people that do not know how to behave. Zoom has been a great asset to attend non evidentiary hearings. For those guilty of not showing up on zoom court and reading this blog you are the problem. Fix it. If not, your life will get more complicated with in person court.
ReplyDeleteLets start a zoom court rating system. Judges get a 0-10 rating depending on how good they are at making the court accessible to the public and to the lawyers. At the end of the day, the court is supposed to serve the community. If the occasional t-shirt guy offends you so much you take it out on the people you serve then maybe this is not the right job for you.
ReplyDeleteNext election cycle will be dominated by challengers pledging more zoom. The election system will resolve this in 2 cycles.
ReplyDeleteIs this an official policy to get rid of Zoom?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!
ReplyDeleteMiami-Dade COVID positivity rate is at 17% -there have been new outbreaks both at the SAO and in jail and winter is coming (GOT reference)-and these Judges want us to come in for a status or sounding which can be handled on Zoom-someone needs to go speak with Wolfson about this.
ReplyDeletePooler is getting rid of Zoom because as everyone knows, it's Cooler to be in Pooler
ReplyDeleteZoom is the best thing to happen to the practice of law since e-filing. The increased efficiency is incredible. And like e-filing, it may not be perfect but its benefits way outweigh its faults.
ReplyDeleteAs a result of Zoom, I am able to charge each client less, handle more work effectively, and spend more time with my family. Judges, let that sink in.
Think about it. As a commercial litigator, I have a handful of hearings a month. Some months its just 3 or 4, some months it could be 20. Most of those hearings are 5 minute motion calendar, and 90% or more are no more than 30 minutes. I rarely have two hearings the same day (although it does happen sometimes), so each hearing is its own logistical process. For in-person, I have to drive into downtown, deal with parking, get up to the courtroom at least 20 minutes early (because you have to make allowances for Miami traffic), if it's calendar I wait on average 20-30 more minutes to be called after calendar begins, and then I drive back to my office or home. A 5 minute in-person calendar hearing is a 2 hour process. Whereas a 5 minute calendar Zoom hearing involves me setting an alarm 10 minutes before the set time, getting on Zoom, and working another file on another screen until I am called. That zoom calendar hearing is a 10 or 15 minute process.
Let's say conservatively that I save 90 minutes of time for every hearing that is Zoom rather than in person. Now let's multiply that out by 10 Zoom hearings a month - that's a 15 hour swing!
With Zoom I no longer have to make the hard choices about whether/how to bill clients for all of that wasted time for 5 minutes calendar hearings. All of a sudden, appearance at calendar went down from a 1.0 billable entry (remember, it took me 2 hours so I am still loosing time/money; and the client is getting hosed since I was only lawyering for 5 or 10 minutes - no one is happy) to a .2 billable entry. And I don't lose money in the process because I can bill for real work (rather than commuting and waiting) on other files now instead.
Some lawyers will resist Zoom because it is not the way they've always done it. There is always a set of people that resist positive change. But we shouldn't go back to in-person non-evidentiary hearings any more than we should go back to countless paper copies of motions for filing by courier and service by snail mail.
What folks need to remember about Zoom is that some judges are proficient at it, and love it, and others fumble with the technology and hate it. Zoom has been mastered by some Judges. They got a lady on the coast, Judge Judy, who can play it like a piano. “Sir, one more word out of you and I will mute you, please, wait your turn to speak.”
ReplyDeleteThe skill to manipulate computer programs is not something all of us have. Some are just born to it. Others fumble. Ideally, a clerk should run the Zoom, but run it in a way that makes the Judge comfortable and relaxed. If the Judge wants to run it, fine, but only if they truly want to run the software. We have powerful software, but all too often running it is more complicated than running the reactors at Turkey Point.
It’s not enough to bitch. Dig into the situation and see what sort of support is given to Judges to Zoom in and out. If we make Zoom easy for them, we can keep it easy for us. Make sure that the guys and girls in the black robes have the staff to support them in Zooming.
Any judge that objects to zoom obviously has never been in private practice. In Miami, a typical day for me includes cases in 3 different courthouses that are not near each other. REG, Juvy and Domestic Violence Courts are all spread out from each other, require separate parking fees, and can take forever to get to with traffic.
ReplyDeleteIf these judges are upset at having to have their JA call attorneys to jump on a zoom (that takes maybe 2 mins), then they should love waiting 45 mins for me to drive over from one of the other courthouses to announce ready on a sounding. So stupid.
And that doesn't even account for Broward Court. Without zoom, the majority of these cases will need to be covered by attorneys that know nothing about the case. That will just lead to frustration and delay. Then they will ban covering for each other and we wont be able to survive.
ReplyDeleteZoom or bust.
Judge Hanzman deserved to be in the Hall of Fame in the Civil Division.
ReplyDeleteThe Q endorses zoom
ReplyDeleteYou can’t zoom when in NYC and enjoy a slice at the Big Easy E’s pizzeria. That has to be experienced in person. You can also see his expanding collection of personal water colors from his estate on Penobscot Island where he has decamped since the pandemic. Many of the paintings hang in the pizzeria on Madison Avenue where a margarita slice with hand made mozzarella and slices of vine ripe organic tomatoes will set you back a cool $6.99. But that’s Manhattan prices.
ReplyDeleteThere are so many good arguments for Zoom hearings. COVID should no longer be one of them.
ReplyDeleteUPDATES on De Coste and Kawass's defense of Katherine Magbanua, accused in the murder of FSU law prof Dan Markel
ReplyDeleteDe Coste and Kawass secured a hung jury in 2019 when their client Magbanua shared a trial with her children's father Sergio Garcia, who was convicted of first degree murder. She's being retried this week.
Here is the state's theory of the case, in sum: During a particularly gruesome divorce between Markel and Florida attorney Wendi Adelson, Adelson struggled to relocate the couple's children from Tallahassee to Miami, where her family resides. Things got nasty, even by family law standards, as the two lawyers waged war.
The state believes that the Adelson family, notably brother Charlie Adelson, exploited his girlfriend Magbanua's connetions to gangsters to have Garcia and another man kill Markel, who was shot dead in July 2014. The second man pled guilty and Garcia was later convicted. Brother Charlie is in jail facing charges, while the rest of the Adelson clan is at liberty around South Beach.
De Coste and Kawass have introduced a new defense theory: they endorse all of the state theory, minus their client's involvement. The Adelsons, they told the jury, did indeed hire the hit and did indeed use Magbanua's connections. Only they did it behind Magbanua's back.
We will see how the jury takes to this defense.
If they lose, many will be left scratching their heads. If Magbanua concedes her ex-boyfriend Charlie is guilty, and if she in fact were the go-between, she could have presumably flipped on him in exchange for a reasonable sentence, especially given that she already has nearly 8 years credit. Her gambit is to beat the case entirely.
Her ask of the jury? Believe that my boyfriend hired my ex-boyfriend to kill someone without bothering to mention it to me, and disbelieve the triggerman who will testify that I was a go-between and delivered the payment, etc. That's a big ask.
De Coste and Kawass are excellent lawyers, so who knows?
De Coste crossed Wendi Adelman this morning and held nothing back. A pleasure to watch.
Zoom is not only good for lawyers, it's good for clients and the environment. It keeps costs and commute time down. We can easily attend without facing traffic jams, accidents, and the perennial lack of parking.
ReplyDelete11:34- do not forget those of us who are multi-talented and handle civil and medical mal cases in addition to criminal cases. And do not forget federal court appearances. Any Judge who objects to ZOOM is a fool and needs to be booted out.
ReplyDeleteJudge Jose Fernandez has now reduced zoom to one day per week.
ReplyDeleteWe should reduce Judge Fernandez to a new job.
DeleteEveryone who is talking about voting out or publicizing names of judges who don’t want to use zoom are living in fantasy land. At the end of the day, electorate doesn’t really care and concern itself with zoom. For its popularity, this blog doesn’t penetrate the conscious of general public. So we can bitch and moan about zoom hearings as possibly thing of the past, but I doubt any judge is going to care even 100% of us prefer zoom hearings.
ReplyDeleteTrue, But who gets opposition is different. All you have to do is run a well-named candidate against most of them and they will lose. Look how many didn’t have opposition this time. And they also want to raise money, most of which comes from lawyers who practice in front of them.
DeleteReally, this is simple. If a judge refuses to permit Zoom hearings for any hearings under 5 minutes in duration where the parties wish to attend virtually, they draw opposition at their next election. Period. We can even create a political action committee to help ensure that this happens. The Zoom PAC seems like a good name for it. All defense attorneys contribute $100 to the Zoom PAC. And we solicit well qualified candidates (with nice sounding last names) who support Zoom hearings to take on the offenders with a promise of Zoom PAC funding. And, of course, we can choose to individually support the Zoom candidates with our individual contributions. The FACDL-Miami can even run the Zoom PAC. This will discourage the members of the judiciary who want to end Zoom hearings from doing so because they know that while they may still win the election, this will cost them time and money (and really ruin their pre-election summer). Thoughts?
ReplyDeletePerfect idea.
DeleteIt's not just the attorneys who like Zoom.
ReplyDeleteIt's 30 DWLS defendants - per courtroom- per hour - several days a week - who don't have to drive downtown to pull out a license to have an ASA look at it and say "State will dismiss on compliance."
That system has been crazy for years, especially since the State is looking at a computer to see that the Defendant reinstated sometimes weeks before the hearing was even set.
This way is so much more efficient.
11:45--Where can I send my $100?
ReplyDeleteWhen is Jose Fernandez up? It is past time with him.
ReplyDeleteZoom is not just about convenience, it is about safety. We no longer have to speed down the highway to get from one courthouse to the other. We can simply step outside into the hallway and jump on our zoom. It’s so easy and so convenient. Unless it’s a trial, evidentiary hearing, or a plea, all nonessential court procedures should be online.
ReplyDeleteThe Zoom PAC should also support judges who are really good with Zoom
ReplyDeleteI’m glad that you like my Zoom PAC idea. So FACDL-Miami, are you prepared to maintain and operate it? How about you Rumpy?
ReplyDeleteAre you kidding me? I've worked in the courts for over 30 years and not one damn judge in Civil or Family want to end zoom! They don't come in, make their staff come in and get paid the same! Maybe it's you Rump who is afraid of Zoom ending and are trying a little reverse psychology, lol? I don't have knowledge of Criminal court sentiment but it couldn't be too much different.
ReplyDelete