Leading Administrative Office of the Court officials began a series of listening sessions on the future of court operations. Judge Glenn A. Grant, acting administrative director of the AOC led the session. Organizations including the New Jersey State Bar Association, Legal Services of New Jersey, Volunteer Lawyers for Justice and other groups from around the legal community took part.
The New Jersey State Bar Association participated to share its observations on what lawyers are experiencing across several practice areas including family, municipal, criminal and civil. Many of those issues were explored in the NJSBA Pandemic Task Force's Practice of Law Committee Report which analyzed the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on various areas of the law and recommended pathways forward as the profession emerges from the crisis.
Judge Grant said input from the groups "will assist the Supreme Court in developing a proposal as to which court proceedings should continue in a primarily or optionally remote format, and which court proceedings should be conducted in person." The Court’s proposed framework will be published for consideration and comment by members of the bar and public, he said.
NJSBA President Domenick Carmagnola said it remains a central focus of the Association to advocate on behalf of the legal community as the profession and courts emerge from the pandemic and determine the best path ahead.
“For attorneys in every practice area, the public health pandemic has required significant adjustments in how they practice law, from procedural issues in connection with court filings and appearances, to substantive issues involving the legal questions with which our advice is sought. The NJSBA is committed to helping the New Jersey legal community successfully emerge from the pandemic and advance the lessons we learned about what adjustments in the practice of law should be memorialized, where additional potential changes can be made to ensure the entire legal system is in step with advancements in technology, and where it is absolutely necessary to return to in-person proceedings to advance the cause of justice for all who come in contact with the system. We are grateful for the opportunity to take part in discussions like this and will continue working with our members and the Court in the days, weeks and months ahead to address these important issues,” Carmagnola said.
Here is a summary from the Judge Grant of the broad themes discussed, resources and how to share additional feedback. NOTE: It has been lightly edited for clarity.
Remote Court Proceedings
This June 2, 2021 notice announced the Judiciary’s plans to continue certain court operations in a remote first or remote optional format in light of the success of our unanticipated virtual operations during the COVID-19 pandemic. For the most part, the sessions revealed general support for the structure outlined in that notice.
Participants identified several benefits to ongoing permission for remote participation in certain court events. Self-represented litigants, attorneys, witnesses, and others appreciate the ability to attend to work, school, childcare, and other responsibilities without the requirement to report in person to a courthouse. Participants highlighted additional benefits in particular case types, such as the ability for youth to participate remotely in certain child welfare proceedings, and the feasibility for distant witnesses to testify during domestic violence cases when in-person travel is not required. Others noted challenges associated with the remote format, including the potential loss of solemnity when parties are not physically in the same room as the judge, as well as the difficulty for new attorneys to learn about legal practice and the degradation of collegiality and professionalism among attorneys if they rarely interact with each other outside of an adversarial setting.
Listening session participants offered practical recommendations as to how the courts could improve virtual processes, including by posting a visible on-hold message during virtual sessions with instructions for how to contact the courts; by requiring that certain remote events be conducted with video rather than with phone; and by adding information in court documents about how to reserve courthouse technology rooms and connect with interpreting services. Others recommended procedural adjustments to retain the privacy benefits of remote proceedings when in-person events are scheduled, such as by designating days and using staggered scheduling for any in-person name change hearings, to avoid crowded courtrooms and open discussion of personal information.
The listening sessions focused primarily on which trial court proceedings could and should be conducted remotely. The discussions expanded to touch on a number of other issues, including but not limited to the following:
- That Supreme Court and Appellate Division oral arguments should be conducted in person;
- That various types of hybrid approaches should be accommodated, including permission for a particular party or witness to participate using remote technology even if the proceeding otherwise is in person, and also including permission to accommodate a party or witness who appears in person for a proceeding that was scheduled to be conducted remotely;
- That real-time transcription services should be explored as one way to support the quality and timeliness of the court record; and
- That further listening sessions should be considered, including at the vicinage level and also with a focus on communities of color and populations with language access needs.
Your recommendations will be shared with the Supreme Court for consideration.
Landlord Tenant; Jury Proceedings; and Overall Court Operations
A number of the listening sessions also extended into other important areas, including landlord tenant proceedings; jury selections and trials; and resumption of on-site presence of judges and state court employees.
- The Supreme Court’s July 1, 2021 Order authorized mandatory settlement conferences as an interim measure pending implementation of further reforms, as will be announced in the Court’s upcoming administrative determinations on the Report and Recommendations of the Special Committee on Landlord Tenant. Directive #14-21 (“Mandatory Settlement Conferences in Residential Landlord Tenant Matters - Implementation of the Supreme Court's July 1, 2021 Order”) promulgated the forms that will be used statewide to schedule those mandatory settlement conferences. As discussed, the Judiciary is continuing to work closely with the Department of Community Affairs to connect landlords and tenants with rental assistance and legal assistance resources. We have posted and will continue to expand information on our public website.
- The Supreme Court on May 11, 2021 issued two jury related orders: one on jury trials; and one on grand jury proceedings. This May 17, 2021 notice provides further information about jury protocols during this transitional period. The Judiciary Working Group on COVID-19 Jury Operations, chaired by Passaic Vicinage Assignment Judge Ernest M. Caposela, also has offered recommendations to the Court as to potential adjustments to jury protocols depending on the progress of COVID-19 trends.
- The Judiciary will continue to provide public information about the status of our court operations and services. This June 17, 2021 notice provides general information (in addition to that shared in the earlier June 2, 2021 notice). Further information is anticipated shortly. More judges and state court employees are working on-site in court locations, and even while some percentage of our workforce is functioning remotely, the Judiciary is continuing all aspects of court operations so as to maintain uninterrupted access to justice.
Contact Information
Participants are welcome to reach out to senior court leaders. Specific questions, concerns, and suggestions are welcome, and indeed are crucial to supporting the ongoing improvement of the New Jersey courts.
Steven D. Bonville
Chief of Staff
[email protected]
Jennifer M. Perez
Director of Trial Court Services
[email protected]
(609) 218-3394 (cell)
Jessica Lewis Kelly
Special Assistant to the Admin. Director
[email protected]
(862) 754-6279 (cell)
Janie Rodriguez
Chief, Outreach and Litigant Services
[email protected]
Brian J. McLaughlin
Jury Programs Manager
[email protected]