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.
This content has been archived.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?
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
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]