A telephone hearing is a three-way conversation among the judge and the two attorneys located at their respective offices. To assess this option, pilot courts in Colorado's 2nd, l2th, and 20th judicial districts and New Jersey's Atlantic Vicinage initially offered telephone conferencing in civil cases and subsequently in criminal cases. The Institute for Court Management and the American Bar Association Action Commission to Reduce Court Costs and Delay provided a research component to conduct the evaluation using observations; a review of court rules; and interviews with 1,517 attorneys, 22 judges, and 57 court staff. The range of matters handled by telephone conference was extraordinarily wide. In civil cases, applications involved substantive discovery, procedural motions, and related discovery, procedural motions, and related pretrial hearings. Applications in criminal cases included lower court appeals, motions, arraignments, show-cause hearings in bond forfeiture, and witness testimony. Attorneys saved both travel and waiting time. Civil litigants and criminal defendants paid lower fees when their attorneys participated in telephone conferences. A high proportion of attorneys were satisfied with telephone conferences, and judges saw no impairment of hearings due to telephone conferencing. Judges believed that telephone conferencing provided greater scheduling flexibility and reduced the length of hearings. Court staff accommodated the new procedure without increasing their overall workload. Successful implementation of the telephone conferencing procedure required careful attention from court personnel and a review of how court proceedings were scheduled, arranged, and conducted. Tables, footnotes, and 24 references are included. (Author abstract modified)
Telephone Conferencing in Civil and Criminal Court Cases
NCJ Number
93782
Date Published
1984
Length
120 pages
Annotation
An evaluation of pilot projects in Colorado and New Jersey that used telephone instead of in-court conferences between the judge and attorneys indicated that a high proportion of all participants benefited from the new procedure.
Abstract
Date Published: January 1, 1984