header-logo header-logo

COVID-19: Remote control

16 April 2020 / Philip Barden
Issue: 7884 / Categories: Features , Covid-19 , Profession
printer mail-detail
Embracing remote access to the courts will see us all benefit, says Philip Barden
  • COVID-19: a new world.
  • Engaging with courts remotely.
  • The rise of remote working and virtual firms. 

Lawyers across the country are having to hastily adapt to a new world as the Covid-19 pandemic sees us told not go to court in an effort to halt the spread of the virus.

Following the introduction of stringent restrictions on movement, lawyers in England and Wales should no longer attend court unless ‘strictly necessary’ with guidance from the Bar Council, Criminal Bar Association (CBA), and regional circuits stating the only exception should be urgent hearings, where remote access is not available.

The last few weeks has seen more and more court hearings take place with judges and one or more parties attending using remote access arrangements and even the Supreme Court has shut down, conducting its first case entirely by video conference.

For most of us, these changes mean we are having to adapt

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll