Advice to Wisconsin Trial Courts
November 10, 2024
My last two columns have advised the Wisconsin Supreme Court. I’m sure they appreciated it and simply forgot to thank me.
So, to be fair, I now have some advice for Wisconsin trial courts (including court commissioners): Serve at the convenience of the parties and lawyers, not by your own, archaic and sometimes inefficient rules.
Specifically, one positive manifestation of the pandemic (my dear late mother used to say that it takes an awfully ill wind not to blow some good) was to allow appearances by videoconference, be it Zoom, Teams, or some other platform. The result was a huge increase in efficiency. But as the pandemic slowly ended, so did the prevalence of electronic appearances.
Now, Milwaukee Family Court Commissioner David Pruhs has announced the Milwaukee FCC will be soon returning to in-person hearings other than for stipulated divorces. Attorneys have told me that similar rules are being implemented at various courts throughout the state.
Understandably, judges seem to like in-person hearings. Nothing can replace the value of seeing a face in 3D. However, courts need to weigh the advantages of in-person hearings with the advantages of electronic appearances. In my opinion, in most cases, it’s not a close question.
Some judges seem to live in the stone age. These are the ones who shun email and are afraid of social media. During the pandemic, they were forced to enter the 21st century. They should stay there. It’s not difficult. To quote Groucho Marx: “That’s so simple a 5 year old can figure it out.” Then, to the guy next to him: “Go find me a 5 year old”.
Electronic hearings are not difficult even with pro se parties – everyone seems to have a smartphone these days. If courts would simply ask them if they have the capability and interest in appearing by Zoom, or even simply by phone, in routine appearances, my guess is that most would be grateful for the opportunity.
Yes, court is a serious matter, and respect for the third branch seems to be dwindling. But in my experience, people don’t take court appearances lightly. Being in a courthouse can be an intimidating experience. Parties are nervous, and especially in divorce, they wish they could just put this chapter behind them.
While a pretrial in a divorce case can be an important step in the process, it can also be of little importance. Several counties, including for example Waukesha and Racine, require frequent pretrials, starting at the 120-day minimum waiting period. Sometimes the pretrial consists of simply informing the judge that more time is needed.
An in-person pretrial can entail a half hour drive each way for the attorneys for a total of two wasted hours. Then there is the waiting time for the case to be called, which as far as the client is concerned, is wasted time – and money.
An electronic pretrial requires no driving time and the waiting time can be used for other matters (hopefully, the lawyers are not billing two clients for the same time!). Then there is the need for clients to take time off of work and sometimes to arrange for child care. Again, these are avoidable expenses.
Of course, judges would like to see the parties in person, but if they think there is any political advantage, they are sadly mistaken. Parties will appreciate a judge far more for saving them time and expenses.
Fortunately, apparently electronic appearances will remain available for default hearings. Hopefully, this will not be taken away as well. Courts should serve at the convenience of the people who use them which means choosing the most efficient means possible.
