By D. James Greiner, Eric Krebs, and Michelle Blouin
The Covid-19 pandemic shifted the business-as-usual mindset globally, but in one court system in the U.S., it prompted a question at the center of an ongoing A2J Lab study: does the medium of court appearances—remote versus in-person—affect outcomes? The Third Judicial District of Utah (Salt Lake City) brought this question to the A2J Lab in May 2021, when alternative methods of court appearance were at their peak. Disagreements within the court on whether the mode of appearance made a difference resulted in an A2J Lab study randomizing video versus in-person in family law hearings in cases in which at least one of the litigants was self-represented.
Renee Danser, Associate Director of Research and Strategic Partnerships at the A2J Lab, leads the study. She said the study’s origin was unusual in that the Lab has not frequently fielded proposals from courts considering a change in operations – usually, study proposals involve organizations seeking confirmation that their approach is the best way. Since the pandemic closed courts and compelled remote hearings, however, the infrastructure existed for both in-person and remote options post-Covid.
“There was some disagreement about what they should do among the bench and some of the leadership in the court,” Renee said. “And so the court leadership decided that they would try to resolve that disagreement through the creation of evidence around these two mediums.”
The Field, Research, and Funding Partners
Nathaniel Player was the director of the Self-Help Center and the law librarian at the Third Judicial District Court at the time. He was already involved in a different A2J Lab study and contacted Renee about the disagreements that led to the study. The work also attracted the attention of Emily LaGratta, founder of justice reform consulting firm LaGratta Consulting. As a research partner, Emily and her firm focus on procedural justice, surveying participants about satisfaction with the medium.
After a competitive grant application process, the A2J Lab and LaGratta Consulting secured funding from the State Justice Institute, a government organization aimed at improving the quality of justice in state courts.
The Project’s Operation
This study focuses on divorce cases and child custody cases; it does not extend to support, child welfare, or juvenile justice matters. Researchers further narrowed the study to self-represented litigants, believing that litigants with private counsel tend to have more resources whether they participate remotely or in person.
The study, officially called Evaluating the Impact of Virtual Proceedings in Family Law Matters, began enrolling participants in November 2022, amassing 680 cases. Cases were randomly assigned to either in-person or remote hearings, and courts alternated the medium of hearings each week. Those assigned to remote hearings accessed the virtual courtroom through WebEx software using a hyperlink sent in a paper order and in the online docket schedule. To minimize background noises and interruptions typical of virtual meetings, courtroom clerks controlled access to the virtual courtroom while muting the general public (since virtual court cases are still open to the public) and unmuting the participants as needed. Once a case was assigned a particular medium – in-person or virtual – it stayed that way throughout the study.
Study Predictions
Disagreements about the best post-Covid courtroom medium centered around a few metrics: time to disposition; durability of court orders; and rate of appearance in court. The “winner” of the study would be dubbed the most efficient and effective medium for hearing family court cases.
The A2J Lab had its own hypothesis from the beginning – no major difference between the two mediums. Some prior research had so suggested, and such was the conclusion of sociologists and psychologists in analogous settings. Similarly, an early report from LaGratta Consulting suggested that the way in which a hearing proceeded rather than its medium dictated litigant perceptions of procedural justice. Study litigants wanted what all litigants wanted – to be provided an opportunity to be heard, to be treated with respect, and to receive guidance on next steps. The A2J Lab anticipates having results in late 2025. If the study produces the expected results, Renee suggests the findings should guide the way courts hear matters. If the data finds no differences in medium, one resulting recommendation might be that the court system offer litigants a choice. “The people with the most at stake are the people who are coming to the courthouse to request a judicial decision on something,” Renee said. “And so maybe they should get to dictate how they access the courthouse, especially in this particular environment because now we know we have the infrastructure.”
If you’re interested in more details of this project, listen to our Proof Over Precedent podcast episode on the topic.