LA courts are finally embracing greater electronic access

This is not the world's first pandemic, and likely not the last. But there have been some positive long-lasting benefits that have come out of the tragedies of the past. From the advent of vaccines, a byproduct of the smallpox pandemic of 1721, to the improvements in public sanitation and living conditions flowing directly from the 1918 Spanish Flu. Now, the legal community stands to receive some long-term benefits born from the traumatic experience of having our "civil" court system shut down for over three months. Here are perhaps the three biggest changes to our age-old model that are on the horizon: electronic filing and service, remote "electronic" depositions, and remote video appearances.

For 20 years I have been advocating for greater electronic access to Los Angeles County Superior Court. It began in 2000 when the Complex Courts Pilot Project was created. I was a member of the first Complex Courts Committee, whose original membership included Judges Carolyn Kuhl, Tim McCoy, Peter Lichtman, Wendell Mortimer, Ann Kough and Victoria Chaney. I suggested this complex court should adopt electronic filing as a standard for filing documents. Unfortunately, the court was not ready. That is when the State Bar of California first began using electronic service -- not electronic filing, just service between the parties. The first e-service provider was Case Home Page. Next came CaseAnywhere. And finally, LexisNexis File and Serve. These three vendors provided electronic service, not electronic filing.

Twenty years later, as a direct result of the pandemic, the court appears to be embracing electronic service. Senate Bill 1146 just passed and is on its way to the Assembly. Senator Tom Umberg, a member of the State Bar, proposed SB 1146 to permit electronic service of documents that would otherwise be mailed, faxed or personally served. It also includes a provision for remote depositions.

Why it has taken this long for electronic service and remote depositions to be accepted? I suppose has much to do with the legal system itself. Our practices are rooted in tradition and rely on stare decisis, so it's no wonder we look to the past and not the future for guidance.

The cost savings and the quality-of-life benefits litigators will receive are incalculable. The number of nights I have spent away from home and family -- and the cities, states and countries I have traveled to -- are too many to count. The amount of time spent in hotel rooms, airports and rental cars, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs, can, if we follow through with this paradigm shift, vastly improve the quality of all our lives.

Under the leadership of Presiding Judge Kevin Brazile, Assistant Presiding Judge Eric Taylor and court CEO Sherri Carter, the Los Angeles County Superior Court is making available a new proprietary system built for the court known as Los Angeles Court Connect. Through LACC, almost every hearing, short of a trial, can be handled remotely. Effective July 6, all courts in the Spring Street Courthouse, which include the settlement courts, the Personal Injury Hub, and the Complex Courts, will become fully remote. To begin using LACC, every attorney must register on the LASC Attorney Portal and create an account. The account is simply your email address and a password.

To see how LACC works you should, if you haven't already, register to participate in the webinar being put on by the Los Angeles County Bar on Monday, June 22, at 12 p.m. I, along with Ron Brot, the president of Los Angeles County Bar Association, will be giving a tutorial. If you miss the live broadcast, never fear, it will be recorded and available to view online at your leisure.

Within the next several months all civil courts in Los Angeles will be enabled to handle remote appearances. Remarkably, the cost of a remote video appearance is just $23 per appearance per lawyer. Should you decide to attend simply by audio (an act I do not recommend) the cost is only $15. The collection is referred to as a "cost recovery fee" because the court cannot sell a service for profit, but it is permitted to charge an amount to recover the cost of service. The court has had to invest in hardware and software to build LACC, so the cost is intended simply to replace that investment.

CourtCall, by comparison, is $95 per appearance and is usually just audio, not video. CourtCall actually had a video service, but most courts did not adopt it, a disappointment to many who have supported adopting remote video appearances for years. In fact, 10 years ago, I participated in an ABA panel on remote appearances urging states to consider the power of the CourtCall platform. I know Robert Alvarado, who started CourtCall, feels like a wolf howling at the moon who is now finally being heard. (I should point out that CourtCall has been serving our courts -- and courts throughout the country -- for over 20 years. They have provided an amazing resource for many of us who could not attend in person but for court's that adopted CourtCall enabled attorneys to "appear" in their cases.)

Of course, the Los Angeles County Superior Court has decided to build their own proprietary video system that each judge's judicial assistant is going to operate, as opposed to CourtCall, which had third-party technicians handle the hearings. The jury is still out on whether it will work. In any event, these are exciting times to see the court innovate. While it has taken 20 years, I am hopeful for where our system of justice will go in the next 20. Modern-day hygiene, sewer systems and medications have been the byproduct of past pandemics, let's hope the silver lining of this one is true integration of technology in a system rooted in tradition, more comfortable with fountain pens and parchment than computers and video. I am hopeful for us all on every front. Look forward to "seeing" you all soon. 