In a recent commentary run on Law.com, appellate litigator Howard Bashman stated that, in his experience, “technology wasn’t an adequate substitute for more direct interaction. … For that reason, I’m not a fan of teleconferencing for appellate oral arguments.”
While I don’t dispute that face-to-face oral argument is superior to that conducted by videoconference or teleconference, a lawyer must ask the question, “Compared to what?” In the practice of law, the ideal situation does not always present itself. Attorneys must consider the cost/benefit ratio.
