A recent Bloomberg Law story by Jacqueline Thomson reminded me of the question posed by Richard Susskind a few years ago: Is a court a service or a place?” The pandemic and other factors suggest the answer is that fundamental fairness demands our courts be less of a place and more of a service.
The Bloomberg Law article highlights a unique case in which a senior federal district court judge sitting in a Boston courtroom was conducting a bench trial occurring in an Asheville, North Carolina, courtroom. The plaintiff, a former assistant federal public defender, sued the entire U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. This resulted in all the judges in the Circuit recusing themselves. Senior Judge William Young, who is among a group of federal judges who volunteer to preside over cases remotely, was assigned the case.
The use of remote judges happens occasionally in the federal system. The volunteering judge can preside over an entire trial. Or the remote judge can handle pretrial matters and motions, returning the case to a local judge for the trial. The remote judges will only handle bench trials.
The use of remote judges who sit in locations other than where the matter is brought opens up a lot of possibilities
As a result of the pandemic, remote judicial proceedings have become more common across the board. But the use of remote judges who sit in locations other than where the matter is brought opens up a lot of possibilities. It’s no secret that caseloads among judges are uneven in the federal system. A matter in one jurisdiction can take years to resolve, while a similar matter in another jurisdiction can take months. The axiom “justice delayed is justice denied” typically holds true. A lengthy time to resolution
