It is so easy to communicate in today’s world. People can speak to each other whether they are on the next street or on the next continent through phone calls, emails, instant messaging, video chatting, etc. These technologies allow people to stay connected and feel like they are having a face-to-face, personal conversation.

Legal professionals around the world are beginning to adopt videoconferencing as an alternative to traditional meetings. Depositions, mediations, and other litigation matters can be conducted through video conferences. There are a lot of benefits to conducting a conversation online rather than in person or by phone, but there are a lot of downsides as well. Either way, this new means of communication is having a big effect on how certain cases are being resolved and its significance needs to be considered.

Video Conferences in General

At the Coye Law Firm, we participate in videoconferencing mainly for Social Security disability and workers’ compensation cases. Many clients pursuing these types of claim are injured or disabled and unable to leave their homes. Video conferences provide a face-to-face interaction between the client and legal professionals without the need for strenuous transportation. Video conferences can be set up at any time and virtually anywhere, so meeting times are more flexible. Because those involved in the chat may never need to leave their homes or offices, videoconferencing also saves time and money.

Case by Case Conferences

Florida is a big state and has many courts to reflect it’s size. If a client appeals a workers’ compensation claim, their case isn’t handled by a local court, but by the First District Court of Appeals, which is located in Tallahassee. Workers’ comp clients in the Keys would have to travel 10 hours to appear at a live hearing in Tallahassee. The workers’ compensation system has adopted video conferencing as a courtesy to clients who prefer not to travel to the state capital. Clients and attorneys can choose to appear at a live hearing if they want to, but our firm has yet to see anyone take this option. These cases can require many short meetings, so clients and attorneys both recognize the benefit of appearing virtually rather than in person.

Social Security disability hearings are designed to show the claimant’s impairment or pain to a judge. Claimants are also expected to testify on their vocational, educational, and workplace history as it relates to their disability. After their disability is assessed, the judge then grants them monetary benefits to make up for their limited ability to work. Video conferences let clients with limited mobility appear at their hearings, but a judge may not be able to assess their character or veracity as well. Because this essential element of the SSD process is impeded by a video conference, the client and/or their lawyer may request a live hearing instead. The Coye Law Firm is making efforts to test video technology and conduct conferences in SSD claims from regional offices. Instead of having to travel across the state or country, judges can meet online with our attorneys and clients at a regional SSD office.

Drawbacks to Video Conferences

Cost is an important consideration in any part of the legal process. It costs money to hire court reporters, rent conference rooms, purchase equipment, and ensure that all of the necessary professionals are able to participate. If the benefits outweigh the costs, then an attorney may schedule a video conference during a case’s resolution if it isn’t already required. As more offices and systems switch to paperless or efficient communication methods, video conferences are becoming a more prevalent means of resolving a legal claim.

Is cost the only thing that keeps legal professionals from embracing this new technology? Not quite. Credibility is an essential part of any case. Visual cues and body language are instrumental in communicating effectively, while appearance and facial reactions can help to bolster a client’s credibility. Unlike telephone calls, video conferences let legal professionals see the client’s reactions. However, the technology hasn’t accounted for normal conversation cues such as eye contact. Many people become nervous when they are on camera or being recorded, so communication can be stifled this way also. Soft-spoken clients may have trouble voicing their concerns through video. If additional evidence needs to be submitted, it can take extra time to fax documents or send files, although all evidence should be submitted before a hearing. These difficulties have been noted in practice rather than anticipated before a video conference.

Daily Applications of Video Conferencing

Despite all of the benefits and drawbacks, the Coye Law Firm has integrated video conferencing into our daily routine. One of our attorneys, Dan Smith, communicates on a regular basis with a client who lives in Japan via Skype. Our firm set up a deposition for this client using the same program, which saved him an expensive and exhausting trip. You can contact our office via Skype by calling username CoyeLawFirm. Our regional offices benefit from video conferencing programs such as iChat and Jabber because our attorneys can share documents instantly and meet clients when they otherwise wouldn’t be able to.

Client reactions are emerging slower than the technology; some believe that their day in court is less personal or ineffective if they only appear in front of a judge on a television screen. Obviously it will take time for everyone to adjust to the changing means of communication during a case. Since the beginning, our firm has taken advantage of how the latest technology increases communication efficiency. As the legal system adapts, so does our practice. The attorneys of the Coye Law Firm want to help clients resolve and understand their specific case. Visit our website to learn about our firm’s experience, qualifications, and ways we can help you.

Wade Coye

I’m sure you have heard it. “People bring more lawsuits when the economy is bad so we need to limit lawsuits, so the economy will get better” Or some variation on this theme. The veiled insinuation is that people manufacture lawsuits because they have experienced some type of economic decline so are more willing to sue businesses and people for reasons other than some harm caused that is attributable to a particular defendant. Comments such as this are inaccurate at best and at worst are a lie created to develop protections from our legal system. If you think about it, how could you have more job injuries when less numbers of people are working and how could you possibly have more car wrecks when people are not driving. The answer is: you can’t. A close check of on the job accidents and car wrecks reveals that both numbers drop during recessionary times. Unfortunately misguided statements such as this become cannon fodder for extremist groups who seek to limit a persons right to go to court when damaged.

Economic declines affect lawsuits, but not in ways that are commonly suggested in the media. For instance, if someone is injured in a car wreck and has already lost a job and benefits such as health insurance, this person and their family may have incurred hospital and doctor bills that remain outstanding, which, while perhaps ultimately the responsibility of the defendant, nevertheless contribute to increases stress for the injured person and ultimately requires the payment of higher damages by a defendant. Because health insurance typically pays medical bills at a previously negotiated lower reduced rate, the total outstanding bills paid for damages to a person are therefore lower when a person has health insurance. An uninsured person who is injured has a claim that necessarily requires payment of more bills than a person who has some form of insurance.

When people don’t have a job, there are many consequences and the impact is felt in many different ways. But people do not file lawsuits and pursue legal matters because they want to or because they think there is going to be some type of a payday. Lawsuits are filed because a person or corporation was negligent and someone was damaged. Our legal system provides one of the best ways to resolve disputes about liability in our society and efforts made to eliminate this right do not promote justice and fairness.