Judges Speak Out: Did the Need to Use Distance Technology to Mediate during COVID-19 Outweigh the Potential Ethical Pitfalls Related to its Use?
Loading...
Authors
Carlisle Flowers, Suzette
Issue Date
2022
Type
Dissertation
Language
Keywords
ethical pitfalls/problems related to remote court proceedings , ethical pitfalls/problems related to remote mediations , mediation , problems related to technology and remote court proceedings
Alternative Title
Abstract
Judges should not express their personal opinions about cases that appear before them. When legal precedent exists, judges should apply the law to the facts and rule. For cases of first statutory impression, judges look for legislative intent. This study gave judges an opportunity to share their personal views without looking to precedent or statutory intent for guidance. During the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, a time of constantly evolving business guidelines related to public safety, such an opportunity was provided to judges across the United States. Judges did not believe the need to use technology to mediate during the COVID-19 pandemic created more potential for ethical pitfalls to occur than mediations conducted face-to-face (FTF). Judges reported their computer skills improved during COVID-19, along with their confidence that technology can be used to conduct mediations. Many judges plan to continue to use technology to conduct mediations after COVID-19 is contained. Of course, not every judge is convinced that technology is a resource to be used for mediations or other court proceedings. Judges shared their own definitions of “ethical pitfalls” related to the use of distance technology during hearings mediations and hearings during COVID-19. The population studied included full and part-time judges across the U.S. The unit of analysis was sitting judges, whether or not they were legally trained or conducted mediations. Judges responded through two research methods: an online survey and participation in an online focus group. Judges (n= 532) responded to a survey and in August 2021, some of these judges (n = 41) also participated in one of seven focus groups.