"Appearing" Naked in Court through Technology

Do you want to be completely relaxed while talking to the judge away from the stress of the physical courtroom? Is appearance really vital in every court action? Or do our laws just promote it because lawyers get paid more to appear? Can't our busy supervising lawyers in OLA just be on the speakerphone if we make simple motions in non-trial hearings? Frankly, personal appearance can be done away on some court days. And actually, if you are a lawyer here qualified to and are handling cases in California you can actually do just that.

Since 1988, the California Courts have allowed the "appearance" of lawyers by way of telephonic system. At first, I thought this meant that the lawyers must "appear" via videoconferencing, at the very least. But after reading more articles, I found out that this can be done not only by conference calls but also by speakerphone. This is not the ususal speakerphone we have at home, it is high tech enough to be regulated as to multiple parties and quality of the reception.

Of course, this is only allowed in civil cases in superior court for pre-trial conferences and non-evidentiary law, motions or probate proceedings and in special proceedings such as Unlawful Detainer. They can do so because their judicial council allowed in the California Rule of Professional Conduct, Rule 298 in 1988 this optional appearance within ten counties. And later in July 1998, it was ammended to specifically give the lawyers this right in every superior court in California. Their Rules of Court also was amended to make way for this.

This service is provided largely by a private company called CourtCall which was founded by two lawyers, and a lesser used one called CCS's Appearence by Phone. Some courts provide their own facility to further avoid costs. A study lauded CourtCall for its success and its innovation as it merged an IP telephony with a call center. It said that their reliability, security, productivity, seamless scale and deceased costs are impressive as well as their innovations through newer technologies. CourtCall even provides an online or by fax scheduling of your hearings. It would depend on the availability of the judge, your choice of open court platform or private chambers platform and your case. The schedule itself already avoids waiting time. In fact the service provides a TeleConference Specialist which only allows the proper calls in their proper time. It is really useful here in the Philippines because we only get to see the number our case to be called when we get there. The service also includes a privacy platform for sensitive issues where there is a TeleConference Specialist which acts as the virtual clerk for the judge.

By experience, it has been proved that this set-up has saved litigation costs on appearance fees and expenses, speeded up cases because of the cut of travel time if parties are from different states, avoided late or no show appearances and can allow the lawyers to multi-task even while "in court". It's now possible to attend more hearings than is "physically" possible. Appearing naked while on speakerphone is now a possibility if that is your kink. Technology allows you more freedom to do whatever you want.

Can we do this in the Philippines? Seeing as we are also plagued by traffic, postponement, even separation by water from different islands in the Philippines and heavy costs of litigation, this is very beneficial for the lawyer, the client and the courts. I admit fraud may take place, but this can be lessened if not avoided by proper security measures.

Sources:
http://www.netsvcs.com/Monthly_Newsletter/June2007/CourtCall.pdf
http://www.courtcall.com/ccallp/JudOffPage_Public
http://www.courtcall.com/ccallp/NewsPage_Public#
http://www.kern.courts.ca.gov/courtcall.asp