In the pandemic era of remote oral arguments, audio is good, but audio-visual is better, although both come with a significant cost of reduced or eliminated eye contact, federal and state appellate judges said in a recent survey.

Twelve jurists, including Justice Stephen Breyer, responded to questions about their experiences with remote arguments in an article in the Journal of Appellate Practice and Process: “Remote Oral Arguments in the Age of Coronavirus: A Blip on the Screen or a Permanent Fixture?” In addition to the U.S. Supreme Court, the judges who participated in the survey sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and the Supreme Judicial Courts of Maine and Massachusetts.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]