Zoom Court Hearing Cautions

With COVID lasting longer than expected, courts are relying more and more on conducting motion and evidentiary hearings via Zoom. While meetings have been very successful on Zoom, court hearings present unique challenges. Here are some of the cautions related to holding court cases via Zoom:

1. Control. Judges lack the same kind of control in a virtual courtroom as they have in a real courtroom. For example, they cannot control who is physically present, who is using a cell phone, who is talking to whom, who is coaching witnesses, etc.

2. Who Really Is Watching? In theory, anyone can walk into a real courtroom to watch a family law hearing, but the reality is that most people are not going to take the time from work, drive to court, find parking, go through security, etc., unless it is a very compelling reason. But, when it is a matter of just logging onto the computer, there could be many lurkers – coworkers, bosses, neighbors, church parishioners, or worse yet, children.

3. The Integrity of Testimony. In trials/evidentiary hearings judges will usually sequester third-party witnesses in the hallway outside the courtroom. But with YouTube and Zoom, this is much harder to achieve. Will judges be able to tell if witnesses are being coached or using notes?

4. Illegal Recordings. Only courts should have the ability to record the trials on Zoom, but realistically, courts do not know whether third parties have illegally recorded the hearing.

5. Judging Witness Demeanor. Some believe that judges cannot assess witness’ demeanor as well via Zoom as when they are physically present in a courtroom - for example, observing shaky hands.

These are considerations to be taken into account when holding hearings virtually.

How will vaccinations impact the law?

As vaccinations begin to roll out , one question arises: which states and/or employers might adopt COVID-19 vaccine mandates? Over time, this is likely to become a more important issue as the United States concentrates on vaccinating a large amount of its population, especially in the wake of variants and hesitation by some to become vaccinated.

Key takeaways include the following:

• It is unclear how much authority the federal government has to institute a general vaccine mandate, which has not yet been tested in the courts, though it is likely limited at best.

• The States, however, have well established authority to mandate vaccines to protect public health. For example, all states require vaccines for school attendance, while state vaccine requirements for health care workers vary. More generally, though, states do not use mandates for adult vaccination and up to now have said they are not mandating COVID-19 vaccination.

• Some private employers require influenza vaccines for employees in health care settings, unless prohibited by state law, and some employers and universities have already instituted mandates for COVID-19 vaccination for employees and/or students; at the same time, several states have sought to limit their ability to do so.

• When in place, under federal law, vaccine mandates may be subject to exemptions based on disability or religious objection.

As COVID-19 vaccination efforts continue, it is important to monitor changes in government or employer policy as well as public opinion on vaccine mandates.

Source: Kaiser Family Foundation, MaryBeth Musumeci & Jennifer Kates, April 7, 2021

Cook County Circuit Court Approached Pandemic with Innovation

Keeping the fair and efficient administration of justice moving forward in the Chicago area, the Cook County Circuit Court tackled COVID head-on by employing technology, innovation, and a spirit of cooperation to meet the coronavirus challenge, resulting in 1,474,274 hours of Zoom court sessions with more than 1.8 million participants between March 17, 2020 and March 11, 2021 in all divisions.

The court also handled 894,991 motions and orders between March 17, 2020 and March 5, 2021, which includes adult criminal matters, plus most civil matters.

“The pandemic, while tragic and challenging on many levels, has also been a source of education for the courts,” said Judge Evans. “We have learned something from it about the flexibility and the resiliency of judges, attorneys and all court personnel that will benefit us in delivering justice going forward.”

Numbers stated above come from both the Circuit Court and from the Administrative Office of Illinois Courts, available here.

Will COVID-19 Change the Law?

It appears that the COVID-19 pandemic has tested, informed, and may even be changing the legal landscape. There are many questions that have been raised with it: how can meeting the needs of the most vulnerable populations be met? How do different regulations both help and hinder people and businesses? What about competing issues - such as free speech and public health? The Pandemic will force the legal community to relook at certain laws and how they might change.

Many attorneys have varying thoughts on this issue, but one thing is clear: the consequences of the virus will be extensive, unpredictable, and extraordinarily powerful.

A Look at Employment Litigation in 2020

Lex Machina’s “Special Report: Impacts of COVID-19 on Employment Litigation in Federal Court” (October 2020) identifies several significant global trends in employment litigation along with trends associated with COVID-19. Overall, the first nine months has seen:

1. A 12% decrease in federal employment cases from 2019, but in looking at the time period of 2010-2019, there has been a 16% decrease in filings in total.

2. Significant decreases have been with cases: in harassment (-22%), Americans with Disabilities Act (-20%), and discrimination (-17%) compared to 2019. This is most likely due to the lack of workplace contact and mass layoffs or shifts to remote work.

3. Approximately, 2,000 fewer cases were closed in 2020 than 2019, which is reflective of the dramatic slowdown in court activity during the pandemic.

4. The federal district courts with the most employment filings are in New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Georgia; this is essentially unchanged from 2019.

According to Lex Machina, decreases in litigation are due to several reasons: many employers had to lay off workers due to the Pandemic. Those who were working may have been fearful to bring up an issue or filing a claim which might lead to losing their job. The remote working environment may contribute to lower employment litigation as it can avoid negative workplace interactions and does not offer physical proximity. Finally, the fact that courts have been closed for months with attorneys working remotely may have resulted in reduced filings.

Awarded 2021 Best Lawyers in America Designation

The 27th edition of Best Lawyers in America has once again selected Michael T. Hannafan to this esteemed list for 2021. The selection process was made by fellow peers. Mr. Hannafan is honored for this continuing distinction.

Types of COVID-19 Lawsuits

Millions of Americans have seen their lives disrupted by COVID-19. This outbreak has resulted in updending lives, ranging from “social distancing” to “shelter-in-place” orders to massive unemployment on a scale not seen since the Great Recession. With so much disruption, many are seeking to file coronavirus lawsuits alleging negligence by companies, governments, employers and more.

Here are the most common types of lawsuits currently being filed:

• Workers’ compensation claims

• Lawsuits against cruise lines

• Lawsuits against airlines

• Lawsuits against hotels

• Lawsuits against healthcare companies

• Coronavirus daycare lawsuits

• Shareholder lawsuits against companies affected by COVID-19

• Coronavirus lawsuits against federal, state and local governments

• Lawsuits against insurance companies due to Coronavirus

• Class action lawsuits against China due to Coronavirus

If you believe that you have a valid case from COVID-19, please contact an attorney to discuss your options.

COVID-19 Lawsuits in Illinois

People need to think carefully and seriously before filing a COVID-19 lawsuit. As of now, in Illinois there have been almost 200 COVID-19 lawsuits filed in the State of Illinois. It’s a balance between righting a wrong and taking responsibility for one’s actions. With many businesses struggling to stay afloat, it is important that it is not a baseless liability lawsuit. A valid lawsuit is important to pursue, but an unjustifiable one can destroy a business, forcing them to close, lay off employees, disrupting local supply chains, and potentially limiting the production of essential goods.

Awaiting Results from 2021 Best Lawyers in America Designation

For several consecutive years Hannafan & Hannafan has achieved the status of Best Lawyers in America. This was true in 2020, and the firm is awaiting the results for 2021.

The Best Lawyers in America was first published in 1983. Since then, the same tried and tested peer review process has been used consistently for more than thirty years. While the scope and scale of The Best Lawyers in America publication has dramatically grown over the years, its core mission to highlight the top legal talent in America has remained unchanged.

Update from IL Supreme Court on Resuming Judicial Operations from COVID-19

Illinois Supreme Court Guidelines for Resuming Illinois Judicial Branch Operations during the COVID-9 Pandemic - May 20th Update

As noted in the Supreme Court’s May 20, 2020 order, chief circuit judges are authorized to develop plans for resumption of court operations in their circuits. Plans for each circuit, which may even differ from county to county, should be based on the factors specified in the order and with due consideration to the guidelines in this document.

The local plans should continue to promote the use of remote hearings where appropriate. To the extent that the March 17, 2020, order prohibits in-person proceedings on non-essential matters, that provision is relaxed in accordance with a chief judge’s local plan. This directive acknowledges both the successful use of remote hearings during the stay-at-home order and the reality that jurisdictions will need to take the appropriate amount of time to gradually resume holding matters in the courthouse. In most jurisdictions, this will be a slow process and the pace will be dependent on local conditions which may change rapidly.

The May 20, 2020, order also modifies the April 7, 2020, order which provides that chief judges may continue trials until further order of the Court. Such continuances remain excluded from speedy trial computations and statutory time restrictions are tolled until further order of the Court. The May 20 modification states that this provision also applies when a trial is delayed when the court determines proper distancing and facilities limitations prevent the trial from proceeding safely. The judge in the case must find that such limitations necessitated the delay and shall make a record thereof. This May 20 modification acknowledges the significant challenges most courts will immediately face in resuming trials at the courthouse, and jury trials in particular, in a manner that assures the safety of all participants.

For the full article, please visit: https://courts.illinois.gov/Administrative/covid/052020_SC_GL.pdf