How hearing mediums impact family law cases
This article is adapted from "Litigant Empowerment Through Choice? Insights from an Ongoing Study of Remote versus In-Person Family Court Hearings," by Emily LaGratta, LaGratta Consulting; and Renee Danser and D. James Greiner, Access to Justice Lab at Harvard Law School, published in Trends in State Courts, 2024.
A new study exploring how remote versus in-person hearings affect self-represented litigants in family law cases found that fairness and engagement need more emphasis in remote hearings, and showed participants wanted a choice between the two platforms.
The research, a partnership between the Harvard Law School Access to Justice Lab, LaGratta Consulting, and Utah's Third District Court, ended in 2025 and examined whether timelines, participation rates, and the perception of fairness differed based on the hearing formats used.
Initial findings focus on fairness, choice
While data are still being analyzed, researchers have reached the following early conclusions:
- Results showed that 84% of in-person litigants reported feeling they were treated fairly, compared to just 65% of remote litigants
- Those assigned remote hearings were more likely to express concerns about procedural fairness and worried that their voices weren't being heard
- Feedback also indicated that using processes such as breakout rooms and structured participation for remote hearings also improved satisfaction
- About half of those assigned remote hearings preferred appearing in person, while half who appeared in person would have favored a remote option
- The hearing platform didn't significantly impact case timelines or change failure-to-appear rates. Both in-person and remote litigants appeared in most of their scheduled hearings
Rather than employing a one-size-fits-all approach to hearing formats, courts can benefit from allowing litigants to choose the hearing platform that works best for them. Courts can also enhance remote experiences by refining procedures and offering choices to litigants, which could help improve trust and boost voluntary compliance.