Allowing employees to work remotely has proven beneficial for both companies and employees. With advancements in technology and the global lockdown four years ago, remote work has shown increased productivity and efficiency compared to traditional office work. A 2021 Owl Labs study found that 90% of employees reported the same or higher productivity levels when working from home compared to the office (Artis Rozentals, "In-Office Vs. Remote Vs. Hybrid Work Two Years Later: The Impact On Employee Efficiency," Forbes, March 18, 2022). This increase can be attributed to the comfortable and personalized home environments that reduce stress and distractions. While some argue that the blend of home and work life creates more distractions, it also allows employees to be more relaxed and avoid compartmentalizing their responsibilities.
The study also noted that 55% of respondents are working longer hours remotely, leading to increased productivity as more time is devoted to tasks and projects. Remote work eliminates the time-consuming aspects of office life, such as commuting, which the U.S. Census Bureau reported took an average of 55 minutes per day in 2019. This saved time can be reallocated to work or relaxation, enhancing overall efficiency (United States Census Bureau, "Estimates Show Average One-Way Travel Time to Work Rises to All-Time High," last visited March 18, 2021). Although longer hours could lead to burnout, the flexibility of remote work allows employees to incorporate healthier habits like balanced breakfasts, yoga, or extra sleep, keeping them energized and productive.
Remote work offers numerous advantages for lawyers. It provides greater flexibility in managing workloads, allowing lawyers to balance case preparations with personal responsibilities more effectively. This can enhance job satisfaction and reduce stress in a profession known for its high burnout rates. Remote work also enables law firms to attract and retain top talent by expanding the potential hiring pool beyond geographical constraints. Additionally, it can lead to cost savings by reducing the need for large office spaces and associated overhead costs. The ability to access and share digital documents and conduct virtual meetings efficiently streamlines case management and client interactions, making legal services more responsive. Overall, remote work can significantly boost productivity and well-being for lawyers while providing financial and operational benefits to law firms. However, we will stick to in-person trials, especially for high-profile cases such as criminal trials.
You wrote, "we will stick to in-person trials, especially for high-profile cases such as criminal trials." I agree and would expand that to include all trials of any significant duration, such are more than an hour or two. As an appellate lawyer, my job is to review and base arguments on the trial court record. A trial record can become very convoluted and hard to follow if it was done by Zoom and some participants used substandard mics or had intermittent internet connections causing dropouts.
ReplyDeleteI strongly urge any lawyer who does even a few Zoom proceedings to invest (maybe $200 max) in a better mic and webcam than what is built into a laptop computer, most of which are junk even if the laptop itself is a well-designed device. This is largely a function of design. There is no way the camera can be in the right place when mounted at the top of a laptop screen. It will always be too low unless the laptop is elevated on a stand. Size constraints also mean it will not be of stellar optical quality. And a mic housed above or below a keyboard is too far from the user's mouth to filter out extraneous noise and avoid the "hollow" or "echo" sound artifacts so common in Zoom call. And always try to use a hardwired Ethernet connection between the computer/laptop and router when doing Zoom hearings. No matter how good your Wi-Fi is, it inherently will have lag and dropouts when compared with Ethernet. Since for size reasons most laptops lack an Ethernet port, this will involve using a USB Ethernet dongle or a full docking station.
In my experience, transcripts of Zoom trials are about 25% longer than in-person trial transcripts and contain far more "unintelligible" notations because the court reporter/transcriptionist could not hear what was said clearly enough.
I remain strongly in support of the use of Zoom court proceedings for motions hearings, pretrials, status conferences, short evidentiary hearings, and appeal oral arguments. Trials of any length should be in-person in the courtroom. Most modern courtrooms have better audio/video recording equipment that most users have on Zoom.
Jealixson, I completely agree with you here. When I started working remotely full-time, my billing went up (I am a paralegal), I was more productive, I was happier, I was eating better, and getting more sleep. Not to mention, I spend less money on case and I don't have to risk my life in Tampa traffic every morning and afternoon. I certainly work more because I lose track of time and find myself working late into the evening. It isn't for everyone, but I love the idea of having the choice based on how you are most productive.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with you Professor Bassett. Zoom is perfect for hearings and meetings, but trials necessitate a court room. I think courts agreed because I remember all trials being continued when COVID first hit. I think people have figured out that they need a high-quality camera and strong connection, because the quality of meetings has gone up so much. Everyone is more efficient and the Zoom calls are just more effective when everyone is prepared with the proper tech.