The Chief Judge’s Page

Proposed Rule Amendment Regarding Remote Proceedings

Throughout this summer, the 19th has seen an increase in activity in the courthouse. In-person proceedings are occurring more regularly in all divisions, in addition to our remote and hybrid proceedings—all in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 45. The Illinois Supreme Court adopted its current Rule 45 in May 2020 in direct response to the Covid crisis. The rule was short, simple, and allowed courts throughout the state the flexibility to conduct remote proceedings consistent with local rules and constitutional guarantees. This rule gave us the flexibility to continue to operate in an evolving environment. Our courts were able to provide access to justice at a time when our community was severely restrained. As life slowly began to return to normal, many in the legal community began to question the propriety of ever returning to the “old” way of conducting court. Toward that end, the Court has tasked the Commission on Access to Justice with reviewing Rule 45 and making recommendations for the statewide uniform conduct of court proceedings.

The Illinois Supreme Court created the Commission on Access to Justice in 2012 with the express goal of enhancing “equal access to justice with an emphasis on access to the Illinois civil courts and administrative agencies for all people, particularly the poor and vulnerable.” Illinois Supreme Court Rule 10-100. The process of evaluating Rule 45 creates an opportunity to truly examine best practices for our courts.

There should be a

The Chief Judge’s

Page

BY CHIEF JUDGE MARK L. LEVITT

prominent place for remote proceedings in our Circuit. Remote proceedings provide extended opportunities for participation where none previously existed. However, it must be made clear that some types of proceedings—especially in criminal, family, and juvenile— should be conducted in-person. While remote proceedings are extremely convenient for some parties and practitioners, this should not be the overarching consideration. Remote proceedings provide access to a decisionmaker. This should not be conflated with access to justice. Remote access to proceedings may provide access to the decisionmaker, but such access does not in all cases and in all situations provide access to justice.

This really goes to what the function of the court is, and what constitutes “justice.” Certainly, part of the court’s core function is to decide things and resolve disputes. But that is not all courts do. What sets courts apart is that our core mission is to decide cases and resolve disputes by providing justice. As such, justice is more—often much more—than just decision-making.

Methods for rendering justice (more than merely rendering a decision) vary from circumstance to circumstance, case to case, situation to situation. A Rule 218 status hearing is vastly different than presiding over a juvenile adjudication hearing, felony sentencing, or child-custody trial. Each proceeding has its own unique requirements and challenges, and remote participation may or may not support the court’s