ComDiv Rule 1 Amended: Request to Appear Remotely, Avoid Infection, and Save Your Clients a Buck
September 24, 2020
To be sure, much has been reported on here at New York Commercial Division Practice concerning Commercial Division innovation — including in the areas of courtroom technology and, more recently, in adapting to the “new norm” of virtual practice in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. As we observed a few months back, the virtual practice of law in the Commercial Division is becoming more real than virtual. A recent amendment to the Commercial Division Rules over the summer, particularly to Commercial Division Rule 1 (“Appearance by Counsel with Knowledge and Authority”), has arguably furthered the cause by expressly allowing lawyers to request permission from the court to appear remotely by videoconference.
ComDiv Rule 1 is your basic “Be Prepared!” reminder when practicing in the Commercial Division. It specifically requires lawyers appearing before ComDiv judges to be “fully familiar” with their cases; “fully authorized” to enter into agreements; “sufficiently versed” in e-discovery matters; and promptly “on time” for scheduled appearances. As of July 15, 2020, Rule 1 now also provides at subsection (d) that:
Counsel may request the court’s permission to participate in court conferences and oral arguments of motions from remote locations through use of videoconferencing or other technologies. Such requests will be granted in the court’s discretion for good cause shown; however, nothing contained in this subsection (d) is intended to limit any rights which counsel may otherwise have to participate in court proceedings by appearing in person.
The language of Rule 1’s new subsection is both permissive and discretionary. As the Commercial Division Advisory Council noted in its memorandum setting forth the reasons for the amendment, “Rule 1 enables any lawyer to decline to participate from remote locations … [and is not] intended to limit any rights which counsel may otherwise have … by appearing in court.” As noted by the Council, “many lawyers feel that to serve their clients effectively, they must be able to make their presentations in person and see the judge in order to gauge his or her reactions to the arguments presented.” The use of the permissive “may” in the new provision addresses that concern, among others.
The use of the phrase “in the court’s discretion” likewise addresses common concerns from the bench, including but not limited to the ability to “control overbearing or other inappropriate behavior by counsel more readily and more effectively by visual cues or otherwise.” That said, the Advisory Council’s memo made specific reference to a videoconferencing survey circulated some years back among federal appeals judges in which the majority of the judges “indicated no difference in their understanding of the legal issues in arguments that were video-conferenced versus those that were not.” After all, as the Council observed, “videoconferencing can replicate the experience of talking to a real person across the table, will all the nuances and body language that in-person conversations would convey.”
Notably, the amendment is limited to “court conferences and oral argument of motions and … not intended to address the more complex subject of testimony by witnesses at trials or other evidentiary hearings.”
Having been sent out for public comment over a year ago, there understandably is no mention of COVID-19 in the Advisory Council’s rationale for the amendment, which instead focused on efficiency and “obviat[ing] huge amounts of wasted time and money devoted to unnecessary travel by lawyers.” Here’s the money quote (literally) from the Council on the topic:
A lawyer who travels from White Plains to Albany County to participate in a status conference will require a minimum of four hours of travel time and will incur out-of-pocket disbursements for travel by train or automobile. If that lawyer bills $600 per hour, the cost of the travel to the lawyer’s client would be $2,400 in attorney’s fees plus another $100 in disbursements.
In other words, a Westchester-based client may soon be pleasantly surprised to find a “.5” rather than a “5.5” next to a billing entry that says, “Travel to/from Albany County Supreme for status conference before Platkin, J.”
In short, there is much in the way of practical wisdom behind the new amendment to ComDiv Rule 1, even without consideration of the novel circumstances we’ve all been navigating over the last six months. Add a pandemic to the mix, and the amendment couldn’t have come to us at a more perfect time.