Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 1

THE RESPONSE OF 

THE KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT TO THE 

COVID-19

PANDEMIC

LESSONS LEARNED 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

June 2022
REPORT PREPARED BY: 

Hon. James E. Rogers

King County Superior Court Judge

Presiding Judge 2019 - 2021

jim.rogers@kingcounty.gov

Linda K. Ridge

King County Superior Court 

Chief Administrative Officer

linda.ridge@kingcounty.gov

Dr. Brenda J. Wagenknecht-Ivey 

CEO, PRAXIS Consulting, Inc. Denver, CO

303.888.7939

 bwagen@praxisconsulting.org

This document was developed under grant number SJI21-P-002. The points of view expressed are those of 

the author and do not necessarily represent the official 

position or policies of the State Justice Institute.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Letter from the Presiding Judge and Chief Administrative Officer ...................................................................... 4

SECTION 1: HISTORY OF THIS COURT’S RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ............... 5

SECTION 2: OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT AND SCOPE OF STUDY.................................................... 9

Phases of the Project .................................................................................................................................. 10

SECTION 3: VIRTUAL COURT PROCEEDINGS AND VIRTUAL INTERPRETING ........................... 15

Overview ............................................................................................................................................................16

How Video Hearings/Trials were Conducted in King County, and Summary of 

 Experiences and Recommendations ............................................................................................. 16

How Virtual Interpretation was Conducted in King County, and Summary of

 Experiences and Recommendations ............................................................................................ 20

Research Study – Evaluation of Virtual Court Proceedings and

 Virtual Interpretation .......................................................................................................................... 22

- Research Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 22

- Characteristics of Study Participants ............................................................................................... 24

- Video Court Proceedings – Evaluation Findings and Recommendations .......................... 29

- Virtual Interpreting – Evaluation Findings and Recommendations ...................................... 48

SECTION 4: VIRTUAL JURY SELECTION ............................................................................................................ 57

Overview ......................................................................................................................................................... 58

How Virtual Jury Selection was Conducted in King County, and Summary of

 Experiences and Recommendations ............................................................................................ 58

Research Study – Evaluation of Virtual Jury Selection ................................................................ 60

- Research Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 61

- Characteristics of Study Participants ............................................................................................... 63

- Virtual Jury Selection - Evaluation Results Findings and Recommendations.................... 69

SECTION 5: REMOTE WORK ....................................................................................................................................... 87

How Remote Work was Handled in the Administrative Divisions of the Court .................. 88

Research Study – Evaluation of Remote Work ................................................................................ 88

- Research Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 89

- Remote Work – Evaluation Findings and Recommendations ............................................... 100

SECTION 6: THE NEW FUTURE OF WORK – ARTICLES, RESEARCH, AND RESOURCES . 104

APPENDICES: ...................................................................................................................................................................... 110

A. Decision-Making Worksheet .............................................................................................................. 111

B. Summary of Attorney Respondents’ Comments – Virtual Court Proceedings ............. 112
We are pleased to present to you this summary of our court’s rapid adoption of video technology and change in 

court processes, very much still in progress, undertaken over the past two and a half years to expand access to justice 

in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Our court is just one of many others across the country with similar stories of 

transformational change undertaken during this unprecedented time in the history of courts and court management.   

In an effort to document and evaluate the court’s momentous changes to court practice, this report includes 

the results of surveys administered to lawyers, potential jurors, interpreters, and employees by Dr. Brenda 

Wagenknecht-Ivey. The surveys helped capture stakeholder reception to the changes made during the pandemic 

and the experiences of court users and employees.

When first we received this grant, we thought that its primary purpose was to document temporary measures 

taken during a crisis not seen in this generation. Instead, our court permanently reformed its management 

structure and entire process for allowing access to justice. One could argue that the pandemic allowed courts to 

catch up to the way technology is already used in other businesses. But we would slightly disagree. Courts are 

cautious institutions, careful to safeguard the rights of litigants and the processes developed over time for this 

purpose. It took a global pandemic to force the justice system to update procedures and leverage technology that 

allowed access to justice to occur unimpeded when it was unsafe to enter the courthouse facility.  

The bedrock of all justice is access. If your court is closed, if your interpreter is not available, if your trial is not 

scheduled, then for the family law litigant, child welfare case, the defendant in jail, the business seeking relief -- 

justice is effectively denied. Across the United States, the emergency of the pandemic caused most courts across 

the country to close to all but the most emergent of litigants. 

Many courts remained closed for many, many months, certainly through 2020. For example, The New York Times 

reported that New York City had held nine trials by December 2, 2020, and six hundred the year before: Only 9 

Trials in 9 Months: Virus Wreaks Havoc on N.Y.C. Courts - The New York Times (nytimes.com). Los Angeles County 

held its first civil case in April 2021, Los Angeles Jury Returns $4.8 Million Verdict in Cosmetic Talc Mesothelioma 

Case (prnewswire.com), but not until August did it hold a civil jury trial. These stories are not unusual. 

During this time period, King County Superior Court held over three hundred criminal and civil jury trials, one 

thousand bench trials, and countless hearings. By focusing on our core value of access and safeguarding rights, 

we believe that were able to take a principled approach to creating rapid changes with new processes with 

video technology.  

We are most grateful to The State Justice Institute for funding this effort and for having the foresight to sponsor 

a project to document the rapid changes we experienced during the pandemic.  We are also deeply appreciative 

of our consultant on the project, Dr. Brenda Wagenknecht-Ivey, who shepherded our court through the 

documentation of our efforts, assessment of those practices we’ve found to have merit for long-term continuation, 

and the development of this report on the journey our court has taken.   

It is our good fortune to have a set of exceptionally smart, capable court leaders in our chief judges and director 

team to spend countless hours planning, refining, and implementing new and innovative ways of doing business, 

then continually modifying those efforts when circumstances changed, or we hit a roadblock.  Without question, 

we could not have made the changes detailed in this report without our deeply dedicated bench and staff who 

made this transformation happen. 

Hon. James E. Rogers Ms. Linda K. Ridge

Superior Court Judge Chief Administrative Officer

Presiding Judge, 2019 – 2021
SECTION 1

History of This 

Court’s Response to the 

COVID-19 Pandemic

5
6 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

Washington State has a decentralized trial court 

system with a constitutionally-established general 

jurisdiction trial court, organized by county. King 

County Superior Court (KCSC) is the largest in 

the state, with 54 elected judges, 10 appointed 

commissioners, and 304 employees. The Court is 

governed by an elected Presiding Judge, a judicial 

Executive Committee, and a Chief Administrative 

Officer. KCSC has three courthouse locations 

and a hospital suite for mental health cases. As 

for funding, in Washington State, the county, not 

the state, provides the operating budget for trial 

courts, except that the State pays half of the elected 

County judges’ salaries and covers some funds 

for specific programs. Our county clerk’s office 

(Department of Judicial Administration or DJA) is a 

separate county agency. However, the County Clerk 

is hired and supervised by our superior court. 

King County (Seattle, WA is the County seat) was 

ground zero for the beginning of the COVID-19 

pandemic in the United States. COVID-19 Arrived 

in Seattle. Where It Went From There Stunned 

the Scientists. - The New York Times (nytimes.

com). Our State Supreme Court suspended most 

court operations in all courts on March 18, 2020, 

and then returned local courts’ authority and 

discretion to reopen and restart operations by 

July 2020, subject to certain court processes that 

incorporated public safety practices and other 

restrictions. Our Supreme Court’s emergency 

orders struck a balance between mandating 

certain uniform safe public health practices for 

courts and allowing local courts the freedom to 

decide whether to fully reopen and to craft the 

best procedures and processes to begin work as 

soon as possible. Our current Chief Justice, Steven 

Gonzalez and our Chief Justice in 2020, Justice 

Debra Stephens, along with other justices, opened 

communications with the trial courts, which was 

both critical and unusual in a decentralized court 

system such as ours. 

In retrospect, King County Superior Court was 

fortunate to have certain advantages: a respected 

public health department at the University of 

Washington; an excellent court IT department; 

strong court leadership; a group of judicial officers 

and staff who were already sophisticated in the 

use of video technology and were willing to teach 

others; a county government that was willing 

to fund us with CARES and American Rescue 

Plan dollars; and a very active, engaged and 

sophisticated local bar with a strong interest in 

restarting the court process for their clients. 

By May 8th, 2020, KCSC leadership announced 

that the public’s access to justice was of such 

critical importance that the court would continue 

matters on all case types, including all jury trials, 

at the earliest time possible. There were four 

significant challenges to this:

FIRST, could we develop a public health plan that 

would be robust enough to allow us to reopen? 

SECOND, could we build a video virtual court 

system and train our court to use such a system in 

a very short period of time? 

THIRD, could we gain the support and assistance of 

our local bar leaders and members and their practices 

groups in the use and training for such systems?

FOURTH, could we provide a safe physical 

work location for our employees in the midst of 

the pandemic?

The University of Washington, located in Seattle, 

has a large and well-respected School of Public 

Health. We contacted Professors John Scott 

Meschke and Martin Cohen. They toured our 

courthouses and educated us on what should 

and could be done to restart court proceedings. 

They have continued to meet with us throughout 

SECTION 1 History of This Court’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 7

to inform us on the course of the pandemic. In 

July 2020, we announced our public health plan. 

Masking, distancing, and ventilation were all parts 

of the plan, but one of the key strategies was to 

depopulate the courthouses by limiting the number 

of people that physically came into our courthouses. 

In July 2020, we received funds to repurpose a 

convention center as a temporary courthouse for 

over a year. This was a key strategy employed 

by many courts, to spread out the spaces where 

litigants appeared. 

But we knew that video and audio technology 

was the path forward. Our Supreme Court had 

already ordered most hearings to be by telephone 

or video. But we did not yet know whether our 

court could broaden the use of video to every type 

of hearing and trial, including jury selection and 

civil jury trials (we never considered holding video 

criminal jury trials unless a defendant specifically 

requested one). While many people we serve do 

not have computers, more people in the United 

States have access to a cell phone than to a car 

or television-96% of all Americans, according to 

Pew Research. Because of its compatibility with 

cell phone technology, the court, with help from 

King County IT, identified Zoom as the video 

conferencing platform for use in April of 2020. 

(We later obtained access to limited numbers of 

computers for those who preferred to use one for 

court matters). 

The next step was to create an entirely new set of 

processes and procedures for video hearings, voir 

dire, and trials. This was a massive undertaking in 

April-May, to which many contributed. By May of 

2020, we were in the midst of preparing trainings 

for our court and our bar on video; working on a 

process for summoning jurors virtually and holding 

voir dire on video (with the ability for jurors who 

wanted to come in person to do so); and examining 

a number of related constitutional and other issues. 

In August 2020, we started with virtual voir dire 

for all case types even if the case was otherwise 

held in person. This was a work in progress. All jury 

trials were in person except voir dire, and civil trials 

were held in a convention center to allow physical 

distancing. All bench trials were held by video. 

Between July 2020 and December 

2021, during the heart of the pandemic 

when many other service providers 

including courts were largely shut down 

or providing reduced services, KCSC 

conducted over 1000 remote bench trials 

and more than 300 jury trials. These 

numbers included 190 criminal trials, 

which must be held in person for security 

reasons and to maintain a chain of 

custody of items of evidence, and 110 

civil trials of which 70 were conducted 

remotely. The voir dire process was 

conducted virtually for all jury trials. 

Adopting video technology enabled the 

Court to provide justice throughout the 

pandemic. 

We implemented video civil jury trials in the fall of 

2020 and they became so common that when the 

Delta variant closed many courts for a second time 

in November 2020, we changed all case hearings 

and trials, including civil jury trials, to video. As 

of the writing of this report, all bench trials, all 

civil jury trials, and all voir dire for all case types 

including criminal, remain on video/Zoom. 

SECTION 1 History of This Court’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic
8 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

To be clear, when the court was forced to restrict 

in-person trials as a result of the Delta variant or 

Omicron, criminal jury trials were suspended. 

To accomplish all of these changes, we drastically 

modified our management and decision-making 

structure to allow for rapid reform of court 

processes. Rather than run changes in processes 

through our Executive Committee, we formed a 

tactical work team comprising the court’s Chief 

Judges and Directors (these are department 

heads) to approve changes. We also delegated a 

great deal of authority to certain committees, such 

as the Jury Committee, trainers (judicial and staff), 

and others. 

In addition, we formed a Resumption of Jury Trials 

Workgroup with many members of the civil and 

criminal bar to meet (virtually and in-person) and 

give us their thoughts on restarting. The Family 

Law bar had a similar effort. This was important 

to both get suggestions and to obtain buy-in for 

the idea of going virtual. It is fair to say that video 

trials, and most specifically completely video civil 

jury trials, were not popular with everyone, but it 

was generally recognized that they were the way 

forward during a time of lockdowns. Our local bars 

are well led and were instrumental in helping train 

and publicize this effort. 

We motivated judicial officers and staff through 

frequent communication and a credible public 

health plan. But frankly, we are most fortunate 

to have a dedicated and motivated workforce. 

There was a great deal of fear about the 

pandemic and we were all working full-time 

long before there was a vaccine. We led through 

constant and clear communication about our 

public health plan, regular communication with 

our public health professors, and it cannot be 

said often enough that we have employees who 

work in our court out of a dedication to justice.

There was never a remote work option for 

any courtroom or trial personnel. Other units, 

especially those that directly assisted the public, 

moved to working from home and online (for the 

first time). With an on-line presence, many more 

people were helped, and access to our court’s 

services and programs was preserved, and often 

expanded. For example, in family law, the number 

of people receiving assistance from court staff 

quadrupled.

We are proud of our response to the COVID-19 

pandemic. We responded quickly, thoughtfully, and 

decisively, and most importantly, we made access 

to justice a top priority when many courts across 

the country were closed. The changes we made 

were not perfect by any means, but many of the 

changes and continuing refinements have proven 

effective throughout the pandemic and look 

promising well into the future. 

SECTION 1 History of This Court’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic
History of This Court’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic

SECTION 2

Overview of the Project 

and Scope of Study

9
10 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

Overview - Purpose of 

the SJI Project

King County Superior Court (KCSC) was awarded a 

Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant from the 

State Justice Institute (SJI) in October 2020 to:

Develop and use a values-based, evaluation 

framework to assess the effectiveness 

and impact of new, promising practices 

implemented in response to the coronavirus 

pandemic; and 

Use the results of the evaluation to inform 

recommendations, decision, and actions by 

the Court’s leadership about future practices. 

The study focused on evaluating new practices 

to determine if they should be continued (or 

not continued) post pandemic, and for those 

that will be continued, make recommendations 

for formalizing and improving the new 

pandemic-induced practices.

In short, this evaluation was intended to help 

inform and/or shape future court policy, increase 

the efficiency and effectiveness of the court and 

clerk’s office, and ensure new service delivery 

approaches and innovative practices were refined 

and normalized post-pandemic.

Assumptions made at the beginning of this 

evaluation included:

• Some of the new, innovative practices 

implemented in response to the pandemic were 

likely worthy of continuing in the future (postpandemic).

• Some of the practices may warrant continuing 

in the future but with refinements.

• Other practices may NOT warrant continuing 

post pandemic but were innovative and served 

the Court and court users well during the 

crisis.

• Some practices were not worthy of continuing 

post-pandemic because they were not 

effective. 

Phases of the SJI Project 

This project included five phases and 

spanned 19 months. Pandemicinduced practices were documented 

and summarized across the Court in 

Phase 1. The Court’s leadership chose 

the promising practices to study further 

in Phase 2. In Phase 3, the practices 

were evaluated and findings and 

recommendations were summarized. 

Decisions were made about future Court 

practices in Phase 4 and the findings from 

this evaluation were shared in Phase 5. 

PHASE 1:

Document / summarize new pandemic practices. 

(Dec. 2020 – May 2021)

Phase 1 included recording and reviewing new 

practices implemented across the court in 

response to the pandemic. All areas of the court 

were involved in this initial phase, which took place 

between December 2020 – May 2021. Judicial 

officers, courtroom staff (e.g., bailiffs, courtroom 

clerks, other support staff), division directors, 

court and Superior Court Clerk’s Office (clerk’s 

1

2

SECTION 2 Overview of the Project and Scope of Study
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 11

office) managers, supervisors, and employees (as 

appropriate) were involved in inventorying new 

practices. In addition to documenting the new 

practices, small discussion groups:

• Discussed the effects of the changes on the 

court, staff, and court users, including benefits 

and drawbacks. 

• Captured lessons learned.

• Made initial recommendations on whether to 

(a) continue the practice as the new normal, 

(b) continue with refinements, (c) discontinue 

because the new practice served its purpose 

during the pandemic but did not warrant 

continuing, or (d) discontinue because the 

practice did not work well – it was not effective. 

• The rationales for the recommendations were 

also documented, if available.

Court committees, comprised primarily of judicial 

officers, also submitted summary memos of new 

practices instituted in response to the pandemic. 

In April – May 2021, the researcher/consultant 

completed a content analysis of the information 

gathered from all areas of the court and committees

The information was organized into 5 broad themes: 

• Courtroom processes

• Virtual client services

• Remote Work

• Administration, infrastructure, and 

 governance

• Pandemic practices discontinued after the 

 height of the pandemic.

All practices were documented and presented in 

a Compendium of Pandemic Practices, which is 

available upon request. 

PHASE 2: 

Select the few, new promising practices for further 

evaluation ensuring the decisions were objective 

and aligned with the Court’s core values.

(May – June 2021)

The Compendium of Pandemic Practices was 

presented to the Court’s leadership in June 2021. 

The project team, which consisted of the presiding 

and assistant presiding judges, chief judges of 

departments, the chief administrative officer, and 

division directors, reviewed the practices over two 

meetings in June. This group – Chiefs and Directors 

– pared down the long list of practices and chose 

three for further evaluation. They were: 

Virtual court proceedings including virtual 

interpreting and electronic exhibits.

Virtual jury selection.

Remote work on the administrative side of 

the court (excluded courtroom and clerk’s 

office staff).

The Chiefs and Directors used a structured decisionmaking approach to select the innovative practices 

for further evaluation. Establishing a guiding principle 

and section criteria were essential to the success 

of this approach. The guiding principle, served as a 

compass, reminding and grounding the project team 

in future ideals. The selection criteria, which provided 

criteria to apply when paring down the list of many 

practices, processes, and services are provided 

below. A worksheet used for the structured decisionmaking process is provided in Appendix A.

1

2

3

SECTION 2 Overview of the Project and Scope of Study
12 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

PHASE 3: 

Evaluate promising practices and summarize 

findings and recommendations.

(July 2021 – February 2022)

The evaluation focused on the three promising 

pandemic practices chosen by the project team as 

described in phase 2 above. They were:

Virtual Court Proceedings including virtual 

interpreting and electronic exhibits 

Virtual Jury Selection

Remote Work for court employees on the 

Administrative side of the court (courtroom 

staff such as judicial officers, courtroom 

clerks, bailiffs, other courtroom support staff 

were excluded from this analysis)

Different methodologies were used for each 

practice. Each is described below in the Results: 

Findings and Recommendations section of this 

report.

To summarize, jurors, interpreters, attorneys, and 

court and clerk’s office employees (e.g., courtroom 

staff, staff who provide direct client services, 

court operations and clerk’s office employees) 

were surveyed to understand their experiences 

and suggestions in the areas of study. Judicial 

officers, directors, managers, and supervisors also 

were queried through a judicial retreat, quarterly 

leadership team meeting, and department 

meetings where all topics were discussed and 

additional information was gathered. 

Structured DecisionMaking Guidelines

GUIDING PRINCIPLE: 

The court and clerk’s office aspire to (continue 

to) be innovative and nimble organizations 

that harness and institutionalize the positive 

effects of the pandemic. This includes 

transforming how judicial and court services 

are delivered, recalibrating and refining daily 

operations, and continuing to invest in and use 

existing and emerging technologies. 

SELECTION CRITERIA: 

The practice/process selected should meet 

the following criteria. They:

Have broad impact (e.g., courtwide 

implications; touch multiple 

departments/areas of the court; effect 

various groups such as judges, staff, 

stakeholders/partners)

Uphold/embrace many of the core 

values (e.g., ESJ, accessibility, fairness, 

service to the public, innovation)

Have potential long-term benefits 

for the court/clerk’s office (e.g., cost 

effective, enhance efficiency, increase 

morale and engagement, improve court 

performance – access, timeliness, etc.)

Provide an opportunity to use 

data to evaluate hunches and/or 

differing/conflicting perceptions

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

SECTION 2 Overview of the Project and Scope of Study
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 13

PHASE 4: 

Review evaluation results and make decisions/

recommendations about future court policies, 

practices, and processes. Determine next steps.

(February – June 2022)

Pandemic practices were reviewed and evaluated 

on several levels. First, the Chiefs and Directors 

continually reviewed and refined new practices 

throughout the pandemic. All shared what was 

and was not working in their respective areas and 

real-time adaptations were made. Additionally, 

the Chiefs and Directors convened and conferred 

regularly to discuss their experiences with the new 

processes and practices. Decisions about future 

practices were made at these meetings.

Second, information gathered early on as well 

as preliminary evaluation results were used to 

identify the Court’s needs and opportunities. 

The Court made funding requests based on this 

information. COVID funding requests included: 

training positions to expand training for judicial 

officers and bailiffs on new practices, which 

increased consistency and efficiencies across the 

Court; technical assistance funds to revamp the 

court’s intranet site to provide a better centralized 

repository for training materials for judicial officers 

and staff; funds to assist in making the publicfacing website more user-friendly and current with 

needed information regarding court access and 

scheduling; additional IT help desk support; and 

Zoom technology specialists to support the new 

processes and assist with equipment. 

Third, the Court’s leadership reviewed the formal 

evaluation results of this project as each area 

was completed. The leadership continues to use 

the Court’s experiences and these findings to 

refine local practices and also to advocate for and 

influence the use of these practices post-pandemic 

in courts across the state. Several rule changes 

are currently under review by the Washington 

Supreme Court that may extend or allow the 

continuance of some of these new practices.

Finally, the Chiefs and Directors, as well as 

the Executive Committee, will be considering 

internal policy changes in the coming months. 

In the meantime, the Chiefs and Directors will 

continue to improve practices for a post-pandemic 

environment. They also will continue to promote 

consistency in practices across KCSC.

SECTION 2 Overview of the Project and Scope of Study
14 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

PHASE 5: 

Share findings and recommendations internally and 

with the regional and national court community.

(February – June 2022)

The preliminary findings and recommendations 

were presented at a February 2022 mid-year 

meeting of the National Association for Court 

Management. The Honorable James Rogers and 

Chief Administrative Officer Linda Ridge presented 

the information to court professionals attending 

this conference. 

The findings and recommendations from this study 

also will be featured in the August 2022 issue of 

the State Justice Institute (SJI) newsletter. The 

methods, findings, and recommendations will be 

showcased in an article that will be disseminated to 

a national audience and on SJI’s website. 

The findings and recommendations from the 

evaluation of virtual court proceedings, virtual 

interpreting, and virtual voir dire were presented 

internally to judicial officers at a virtual bench 

meeting in March 2022. The remote work findings 

and recommendations were presented to the Chief 

Administrative Officer and Directors at a leadership 

team meeting in May 2022. The administrative 

leaders further discussed and developed a strategy 

for making recommendations about remote work 

at a June retreat. Recommendations about remote 

work will be developed and presented to the 

Personnel Committee and the Executive Committee 

in the coming months. 

The Court’s leadership will continue to share the 

results and findings with local partners such as 

the bar associations, County leadership, etc. in the 

coming months.

SECTION 2 Overview of the Project and Scope of Study
History of This Court’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic

SECTION 3: 

Virtual Court Proceedings 

and Virtual Interpretation

15
16 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

This section presents the experiences of King 

County Superior Court (KCSC/Court) using 

virtual proceedings and virtual interpreting 

during the coronavirus pandemic. Also included 

are the findings from the evaluation of virtual 

court proceedings and virtual interpreting. This 

section is organized as follows: 

Overview

How Video Hearings and Trials 

were Conducted in King County, 

and Summary of Experiences and 

Recommendations

How Remote Interpretation was 

Conducted in King County, and 

Summary of Experiences and 

Recommendations

Research Study – Evaluation of 

Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual 

Interpretation

Research Methodology

Characteristics of Participants

Video Court Proceedings - 

Detailed Evaluation Results, 

Findings, and Recommendations

Virtual Interpreting – Detailed 

Evaluation Results, Findings, and 

Recommendations

Overview

King County Superior Court (KCSC) conducted 

countless virtual court proceedings beginning in 

July 2020 and continuing throughout the pandemic. 

Transitioning to virtual court proceedings enabled 

the Court to continue to hear and resolve legal 

matters throughout the pandemic ensuring justice 

to the people of King County. 

The Court’s leadership team chose virtual court 

proceedings including virtual interpreting as an 

area of further study under this grant because:

• It was a promising practice that may be 

continued in the future. 

• It aligned with the Court’s core values of 

access, service to the public, timeliness, safety, 

and innovation. 

• It was a practice with broad impact across all 

divisions/courtrooms and involved all court 

users including litigants, defendants, plaintiffs, 

counsel, families, interpreters, and other court 

participants; it had potential for long-term 

benefits. 

• It met the criteria of using data to confirm 

or disconfirm varying opinions about and/

or differing experiences with virtual court 

proceedings and virtual interpreting. 

How Video Hearings and 

Trials were Conducted in King 

County

King County Superior Court adopted a process of 

holding virtual/video hearings for every type of 

case, including civil jury trials, family law matters and 

1

2

3

4

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 17

dependency (child welfare) matters. Some criminal 

matters also were held by video. In criminal pretrial 

hearings, defendants who were out of custody may 

appear by video. Defendants who were in custody 

appear by video from another part of the courthouse 

near the jail. In criminal jury trials, voir dire was 

conducted by video, but trials were all held in-person 

unless specifically requested by the defendant 

(which occurred during surges of the pandemic). 

In all virtual video hearings and trials, court staff 

provided a video conference meeting link (we 

use Zoom) to counsel/parties in advance of the 

hearing.  To maintain public access to proceedings, 

which is required by our state constitution, 

judicial officers and court staff conducted virtual 

court proceedings from open courtrooms in the 

courthouse while participants appeared remotely. 

At the appointed hearing time, court staff or 

the judicial officer started the video conference. 

The court functioned as the meeting host to 

admit participants, including counsel, parties, and 

observers. Court staff also connected courtroom 

video technology to the virtual proceeding. In the 

courtroom, large screens and sound allowed any 

member of the public who was physically present 

in the courtroom to be able to simultaneously see 

and hear all remote video participants.

Every phase of a virtual video civil trial, including 

jury selection, testimony, and deliberation, was 

handled through video conferencing. The Breakout 

Room (in Zoom) served as a virtual jury room 

for jurors to retire during breaks, sidebars, and 

deliberation.  The court adopted virtual trial jury 

instructions to guide jurors on how to conduct 

themselves in a virtual jury trial. 

The record was either made through a digital court 

recording application such as For The Record 

(FTR) or by a court reporter who was present 

in the courtroom. Documents and exhibits in a 

virtual trial were handled electronically. Exhibits 

were handled through a file sharing system (e.g., 

ShareFile), which allowed exhibits to be electronically 

transferred and viewed via cloud computing. The 

Clerk’s Office created a ShareFile folder for cases 

going to trial, and upon granting parties access to 

that case, parties uploaded exhibits. The Clerk’s 

Office adopted and published standardized “Exhibit 

Naming Convention Rules” for parties to follow in all 

cases.  Other documents such as juror questions to 

the witness, jury instructions, and verdict form were 

transmitted between court staff and jurors via email. 

The practices described above remain in place today. 

As the pandemic abates, more parties, counsel and 

witnesses are choosing or asking to appear by video. 

It is becoming common for counsel and parties to 

voluntarily appear by video and in person in the 

same hearing or trial. We are adopting the practice 

of providing a video link and allowing counsel, 

parties and witnesses to decide how to appear in 

a hearing or bench trial. For a civil jury trial, there 

is a pretrial conference first to see if public health 

considerations can allow for an in-person jury. 

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
18 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

In July and August 2020, our Court rapidly 

In July and August 2020, our Court 

rapidly implemented video court hearings 

implemented video court hearings and trials 

across our county court system. In the Fall of 

2020, we also used a convention center to 

hold physically distanced jury trials, but these 

were phased out as the Court implemented 

video jury trials. All of these new processes 

were successful in providing access to justice 

when the pandemic closed most courts 

and prevented courts from holding trials for 

months or years.

Our court system held over 1,000 remote bench 

trials and more than 300 jury trials between 

July 2020 and December 2021. These numbers 

included 190 criminal trials, which must be held 

in person for security reasons and to maintain a 

chain of custody of items of evidence, and 110 

civil trials of which 70 were conducted remotely 

and 40 were conducted in-person. All jury trials 

have used and continue to use video voir dire.

Court video conferencing platforms must 

be compatible with cell phone technology. 

According to Pew Research, most people 

have access to a cell phone, but many cannot 

access a computer. At the beginning of the 

pandemic, many judicial officers and staff 

assumed that computers were essential for 

litigants, and this is not the experience we have 

had. Many people use their cellphone. 

As the pandemic wanes and public health 

conditions allow more people to come to 

court in person, many lawyers and litigants 

are choosing to appear virtually for hearings 

and trials, most notably hearings and bench 

trials such as family law, civil and child welfare 

(which we call dependency). In criminal 

jury trials, which have been held in person 

throughout, defense attorneys are increasingly 

calling some witnesses via video. 

Our courts routinely send out video links for 

all trials and many voluntarily attend via the 

Zoom link.

By summer of 2020, the Court and many 

counsel had worked together to provide 

standardized trainings and retained videos 

for later access, posting them on the court 

website and the local King County Bar 

Association website. The involvement of our 

local bars was crucial in assistance and also in 

understanding what the bar needed.

Early on, with the adoption of video 

proceedings and new practices, many judges 

reported that it was taking longer than usual to 

conduct Zoom trials and hearings, which was 

likely due to the rapid implementation of video 

proceedings. Even after training, there remains 

a tremendous difference in competency and 

practices among courts. These differences 

have diminished, but still exist. 

EXPERIENCES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Our experiences and recommendations relating to virtual court proceedings are summarized below:

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 19

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Implement virtual access to court for 

lawyers and parties to increase the access 

and convenience for all parties.

Support the expansion of, and access to, 

broadband service, which remains a serious 

problem in many parts of our State (less so 

in King County).

Send a video link for every hearing and 

trial. Our experience is that people will 

use it. 

Create and implement standards and best 

practices for all judicial officers and staff 

for video hearings and trials (on our Court 

the entire bench will be trained on these 

practices by the end of 2022). 

Involve your local bar associations in the 

training necessary for lawyers, litigants, 

and judicial officers. 

Analyze how job duties and responsibilities 

have changed as a result of new practices, 

including the workloads and division of labor 

of all courtroom staff (i.e., bailiffs, courtroom 

clerks, court reporters, and others). Change/

update the job descriptions of bailiffs and 

other staff to include the new scope of work, 

job duties/responsibilities, and skills needed 

to conduct virtual court proceedings. Realign 

duties and workloads as needed.

Virtual court proceedings profoundly changed 

how work is done throughout Superior Court 

and the Department of Judicial Administration 

(clerk’s office). Certain categories of 

employees’ jobs changed, and the tasks 

related to video fell more heavily on them. 

As many lawyers were remote for hearings, 

they often asked the courtroom staff to 

perform work they typically would have 

performed, such as distributing copies of 

orders, contacting others, and calling witnesses 

for them. While each task request was relatively 

insignificant, the number of requests was quite 

large and added a tremendous burden to 

bailiffs, courtroom clerks, and other staff.

1

2

3

4

5

6

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
20 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

How Virtual 

Interpretation was 

Conducted in King 

County

For video/virtual civil, family law, 

and dependency trials and hearings, 

the Zoom function was used for 

simultaneous interpretation, but the 

ability to use this was dependent on 

the equipment that the parties possess, 

specifically headsets and the access 

to a computer. If the parties did not 

have the equipment or was using a cell 

phone, then interpreters conducted 

consecutive interpretation.

For criminal trials, which were in person 

(except for voir dire), interpreters were in the 

courtroom and conducted simultaneous 

interpretation. On a rare occasion, virtual 

consecutive interpretation was used 

(which is much slower). 

The practices described above remain in 

place today. 

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 21

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Continue providing virtual interpreting 

services as an option based on the benefits 

outlined in this study and the experiences 

of interpreters. Develop an internal policy 

recommending the use of virtual interpreting 

across all areas of the Court. 

Ensure all courtrooms are equipped with 

the technology needed to support virtual 

interpreting. Invest in technology that will 

enhance virtual interpreting for all involved 

– litigants, interpreters, judicial officers, 

attorneys, and employees.

Provide training-for interpreters on the 

use of the Zoom function, and for lawyers 

and judges on the best practices on video 

interpretation.

Plan accordingly; it takes about ten 

minutes for everyone to set up and prepare 

to use Zoom for a hearing or trial. 

EXPERIENCES AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Our experiences and recommendations 

relating to virtual interpreting services are 

summarized next.

1

2

3

4

During the pandemic, we operated as 

follows: For criminal trials, which were 

in person (except for voir dire), we used 

interpreters in the courtroom as much as 

possible for simultaneous interpretation, 

which is the preferred and faster method. 

For video/virtual civil, family law and 

dependency trials and hearings, we used 

the Zoom function for simultaneous 

interpretation, but the ability to use 

this was dependent on the equipment 

that the parties possessed, specifically 

headsets and the access to a computer.  

If the parties did not have the equipment 

or were using a cell phone (even 

with Zoom on the cell phone), then 

interpreters conducted consecutive 

interpretation, which greatly lengthened 

the hearings.

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
22 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

1

2

3

4

Research Study – Evaluation of 

Virtual Court Proceedings and 

Virtual Interpreting

The evaluation of virtual court proceedings 

and virtual interpreting services occurred 

between September and December 2021. 

Included below are: 

Research methodology (used for this 

part of the evaluation).

Characteristics of study participants.

Virtual Court Proceedings - 

Evaluation results, findings, and 

recommendations.

Virtual Interpreting - Evaluation 

results, findings, and recommendations. 

Research Methodology – Virtual Court

Proceedings and Virtual Interpreting

Survey Audiences and Administration 

Attorneys, court and clerk’s office employees, 

judicial officers, and interpreters were involved in 

this part of the evaluation. 

Attorneys who participated in virtual court 

proceedings in 2021 were surveyed in December 

2021. The King County Bar Association and 

Washington Defense Trial Lawyers Association 

forwarded the survey link to attorneys in King 

County at the request of the Presiding Judge 

and researcher. Sixty (60) additional family law 

attorneys were surveyed in December 2021, at the 

same time other attorneys were surveyed. Their 

names and email addresses were provided by the 

Court’s Family Law Division. Four hundred and ten 

attorneys completed the survey (n=410).

Two-hundred and seventy-nine (N=279) court 

and clerk’s office employees, who were involved 

in conducting or participating in virtual court 

proceedings in 2021, also were surveyed for this 

part of the study. They included commissioners, 

bailiffs, courtroom clerks, other courtroom staff 

(e.g., court reporters, court coordinators, floaters, 

etc.), and staff who provided direct client services 

to court users (e.g., juvenile probation counselors, 

social workers, early resolution case managers, 

CASA attorneys and supervisors, drug court staff, 

family treatment court staff). Department Directors 

across the Court and project staff provided the 

names and email addresses for this group of 

employees. The researcher administered the survey 

in November 2021. One-hundred and eighty-two 

employees responded (n=182).

Judicial officers also were queried about their 

experiences with virtual court proceedings at a 

Virtual Judge’s Retreat held in September 2021. 

The researcher facilitated this part of the retreat. 

Zoom breakout groups, a shared Google document 

for notes from the breakout group discussions , 

and real-time polling (www.PollEv.com/praxis) 

were used to gather information about judges’ 

experiences with virtual court proceedings. Fortyseven judicial officers participated in the breakout 

sessions and real time polling (n=47).

Finally, interpreters who provided virtual interpretation

/translation services in 2021 were surveyed about their 

experiences. The names of interpreters were compiled 

by Court Operations and project staff. The researcher 

administered the survey to one-hundred and fortyfour interpreters (N=144) in November 2021. Seventyfour interpreters completed the survey (n=74). 

Below is a summary of participants and response 

rates.

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 23

Total Number

(N=___)

# of Respondents

(n=___)

Response Rate

(in %s)

Attorneys

Surveyed in Dec. 2021 Unknown1 410 Unknown

Court/Clerk’s Office Employees

Surveyed in Nov. 2021 279 182 65%

Judicial Officers

Data gathered in Sept. 2021 58* 47 -

Interpreters

Surveyed in Nov. 2021 144 74 51%

VIRTUAL COURT PROCEEDINGS & VIRTUAL INTERPRETATION

SURVEYS

The Likert-scaled questions were grouped into the 

following categories:

1. Court Participant Experience

2. Ease of Use

3. Trust in Video Court Proceedings

4. Overall Experience/Future Recommendations

5. Impact on Work/Employees

The Likert-scaled questions were grouped into the 

following categories:

1. Court Participant Experience

2. Ease of Use/Effective Use of Time

3. Court Assistance

4. Environment

5. Impact on Interpreters

6. Trust/Effectiveness

7. Overall Experience/Recommendations

*KCSC has 54 judicial officers and 10 commissioners. 58 judicial officers attended the retreat. 47 participated actively in the breakout groups and 44 and 41 respectively 

responded to the polling questions.

1 The number of attorneys surveyed is unknown because the Bar 

Associations sent out the link to members who practice and appear 

in KCSC. The response rate cannot be computed for the same reason. 

However, that 410 attorneys responded to the survey provided an excellent 

sample size for analysis purposes (n=410).

2 A 6-point agreement rating scale was used for the surveys where 6 = 

strongly agree; 5 = agree; 4 = agree somewhat; 3 = disagree somewhat; 2 = 

disagree; and 1 = strongly disagree. N/A also was an option, which included 

don’t know, not sure, and/or not applicable. 3.5 is the midpoint of a 6-point 

rating scale.

THE SURVEYS ALSO INCLUDED:

An overall satisfaction question.

Several open-ended, narrative questions where 

respondents could explain their responses 

and/or provide comments and suggestions.

A couple of questions providing the 

characteristics of respondents such as type 

of cases handled in 2021 when participating 

in virtual court proceedings, number of years 

litigating cases and/or appearing for court 

hearings/trials, number of years providing 

interpreter services, and work area and 

position at the Court/Clerk’s Office.

1

2

3

Virtual Court Proceedings Survey Questions

(6-point agreement rating scale)

Virtual Interpreting Survey Questions

(6-point agreement rating scale2)

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
24 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

Data Analysis and Interpretation 

The results to the scaled questions are presented 

in proportions (i.e., percentages) and mean ratings 

(i.e., averages). When interpreting the mean 

scores, the higher the mean score, the more 

favorable the rating. Higher mean scores represent 

stronger levels of agreement. Additionally, 3.5 is 

the midpoint of a 6-point rating scale. An average 

rating above 3.5 is on the agreement side of the 

rating scale – the results are favorable, and below 

3.5 is on the disagreement side of the rating scale – 

the results are unfavorable. 

Two common statistical tests were used to test for 

significant differences between and among mean 

scores. Tests for differences in means (t tests) look 

for differences between two groups. Analysis of 

Variance (ANOVA) looks for differences among 

multiple groups. Statistically significant differences 

are reported at the .05 or 95% confidence level 

(common for social science research). 

A content analysis was completed on the narrative 

responses. Summaries are included in the findings.

Characteristics of Study Participants

VIRTUAL COURT 

PROCEEDINGS IN 2021

 ATTORNEY RESPONSES

Nearly 50% of attorney respondents 

had more than 20 years of experience 

litigating legal matters and 25% had 11–20 

years of experience litigating. Attorneys 

that responded to the survey were very 

experienced. 

1% 2%

2%

6%

16%

25%

49%

< 1 Year (n=8)

1-2 Years (n=6)

3-5 Years (n=26)

6-10 Years (n=64)

11-20 Years (n=103)

>20 Years (n=200)

Don’t Know/

did not answer (n=3)

YEARS LITIGATING

(n=410)

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
2%

19%

40%

27%

13%

1-5 (n=162)

6-10 (n=109)

11-20 (n=54)

>20 (n=76)

Don’t Know/

did not answer (n=9)

NUMBER OF PROCEEDINGS

Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 25

40% of attorney respondents participated 

in 1-5 virtual court proceedings in 2021, 27% 

participated in 6-10, and 19% participated 

in more than 20 virtual court proceedings 

in 2021.

The majority of attorney respondents 

participated in virtual court proceedings 

on civil matters (67%) and/or 22% were 

involved in family matters. Only 3% 

handled criminal matters.

0%

3%

8%

67%

22%

Criminal (n=13)

Civil (n=307)

(including ITA)

Family (n=102)

(including Dependency)

Juvenile (n=1)

Probate (n=36)

Other (n=1)

TYPES OF CASES

0%

(n=460) responses1 (n=410)

*Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding

1 This was a multiple response question. Respondents were asked to select all that apply.

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
26 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

2%

8%

25%

19%

34%

POSITION1

3%

9%

VIRTUAL COURT 

PROCEEDINGS IN 2021

COURT AND CLERK’S OFFICE

 EMPLOYEES’ RESPONSES 34% of employee respondents were staff 

who provide direct client services (n=62) 

(e.g., juvenile probation counselors, parent 

advocates, social workers, early resolution 

case managers, CASA and drug court 

program staff, family treatment court staff, 

etc.) and 25% were bailiffs (n=45).

(n=182)

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
1-5 (n=18)

6-10 (n=15)

11-20 (n=18)

More than 20 (n=124)

Dont’ Know (n=3)

Did not answer (n=4)

2%

10%

8%

10%

# OF VIRTUAL PROCEEDINGS

2%

68%

Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 27

2%

26%

12%

35%

14%

PRIMARY WORK AREA

3%

9%

35% of employee respondents identified 

the Family Division/area as their primary 

work area (n=63) and 26% worked across 

multiple areas (n=47).

Nearly 70% of employee respondents handled 

more than 20 virtual court proceedings 

(n=124); only 10% of respondents (n=18) 

handled 1-5 virtual court proceedings. Like 

attorney respondents, employee respondents 

were very experienced. 

(n=182) (n=182)

*Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding

1 Other courtroom staff include court coordinators and floaters; Direct Client staff include: juvenile probation counselors, social workers, early resolution case managers, CASA 

attorneys/supervisors, drug court staff, family treatment court staff, etc.

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
28 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

VIRTUAL INTERPRETING SERVICES - INTERPRETERS

78% of respondents had 11 or more years 

of experience providing translation 

services to litigants.

35% of interpreter respondents provided 

virtual interpreting services more than 

20 times during 2021 and 27% provided 

virtual interpreting services only 1-5 times.

(n=74) (n=74)

*Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 29

6

5

4

3.5

3

2

1

Court Participant

Experience

5.1 5.2

Ease of Use

5.1 5.2

Trust (2)

4.1

5.3

Overall Experience/ 

Recommendations

4.8

5.2

Impact on 

Work/Staff

4.6

Attorneys (n=410) Employees (n=182)

ATTORNEYS & EMPLOYEES: VIRTUAL COURT PROCEEDINGS

SURVEY CATEGORIES (in mean scores1)

1

Means are based on a 6-point agreement rating scale. 3.5 is the midpoint of the rating scale

2This category included 3 questions for attorneys and only 1 question for employees. On the question that was the same, the rating for attorneys and employees was 5.1 and 

5.3 respectively. The overall average rating (grand mean) for attorneys was pulled down because of the lower average ratings on the other 2 questions See following slide.

Observations: Overall, the ratings on each category 

are positive/favorable. All of the mean scores 

for attorneys and employees are above 3.5 (the 

midpoint of the rating scale). 

Virtual Court Proceedings -

Evaluation Findings and 

Recommendations

The results of the evaluation on virtual court 

proceedings are presented next. Findings 

and recommendations regarding virtual court 

proceedings are presented at the end of this 

section. 

Ratings on Survey Categories

The chart below shows the average ratings of 

attorneys and court and clerk’s office employees 

on each of the survey categories. 

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
30 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

1 2 3 3.5 4 5 6

Detailed Results on Each Survey Category

The next 5 charts provide the average ratings 

for each question in the survey category. 

Comparisons are provided between the average 

ratings of attorneys and employees. Average ratings 

are provided for judicial officers on a couple of 

questions, which they were asked at the judicial 

retreat. 

Employees rated two questions 

significantly higher than attorneys 

(See red stars)

Attorneys (n=410) Employees (n=182)

#1 COURT PARTICIPANT EXPERIENCE: VIRTUAL COURT PROCEEDINGS

COMPARISON OF ATTORNEYS AND EMPLOYEES (in mean scores1)

5.3

5.7

4.8

4.7

4.8

4.7

5.3

5.6

5.2

Video court proceedings used during the 

pandemic were an effective way to continue 

moving the Court’s cases toward resolution

It was easy for my clients (or court 

participants) to use Zoom/video conferencing 

tech for video court proceedings. 

Court Staff were available to assist if court 

participants encountered problems using 

Zoom/video conferencing technology

Video court proceedings are an effective way 

to keep all court participants healthy and safe.

Participating in video court proceedings using 

Zoom was convenient. It saved me and or my 

clients time and money (eg., commute time, 

cost of public transportation, parking.)

1

Means are based on a 6-point agreement rating scale. 3.5 is the midpoint of the rating scale

2Red Star - statistically significant difference between means score of respondents. The difference is not due to change.

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 31

Court Participant Experience Observations:

Each question in this category was rated 

favorably by survey respondents. All mean 

scores are above the mid-point of the rating 

scale.

The two highest rated questions in this 

category were: (1) video court proceedings 

used during the pandemic were an effective 

way to continue moving the Court’s cases 

toward resolution and (2) video court 

proceedings are an effective way to keep 

all court participants healthy and safe. 

Employee ratings on these two questions 

were significantly higher than attorneys (as 

noted by the red stars on the chart). 

Attorney and employee respondents rated this 

category of questions – 1 - Court Participant 

Experience – highly. Ratings on each question 

were on the “agreement” side of the rating 

scale. 

Additional statistically significant differences 

in the mean scores of survey respondents on 

this set of questions are provided in the table.

Statistically Significant 

Differences in Mean Scores

#1 Between Court & Clerk’s Office 

Employees in Court Participant Experience

Employee respondents from the criminal 

area rated this category – the entire set 

of questions – significantly lower than 

employee respondents from the family and 

juvenile areas, and bailiffs rated this category 

significantly lower than staff who provide 

direct client services. That is, the grand 

mean for these groups of employees were 

significantly different for this set of questions; 

the differences were not due to chance.

Employees from the criminal division/area rated 

the question below significantly lower than 

respondents from the family and juvenile areas. 

Bailiffs also rated it significantly lower than staff 

who provide direct client services. 

“It was easy for court participants (e.g., 

litigants, attorneys) to use Zoom/ video 

conferencing technology for video court 

proceedings.”

Bailiffs also rated the question below 

significantly lower than staff who provide direct 

client services:

“Court staff were available to assist if court 

participants encountered problems using Zoom.”

Employee respondents 

from the criminal area and 

bailiff respondents gave 

significantly lower ratings to 

this set of questions than did 

respondents from the family 

and juvenile areas of the 

court and staff who provide 

direct client services.

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
32 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

Attorneys (n=410) Employees (n=182)

#2 EASE OF USE: VIRTUAL COURT PROCEEDINGS

COMPARISON OF ATTORNEYS AND EMPLOYEES (in mean scores1)

1 2 3 3.5 4 5 6

5.2

5.4

5.2

5.2

4.4

4.9

5.4

5.3

Once I learned how to use Zoom, it was easy 

to use for video court proceedings.

Once I/We Learned how to use Zoom, 

the time it took to conduct video court 

proceedings was reasonable.

Video court proceedings were handled 

consistently across courtrooms; consistent 

procedures, protocols, & practices were used 

throughout KCSC. / My assignment area/dept. 

handled virtual court proceedings similarly.

I feel competent to participate in video court 

proceedings. / I feel comfortable presiding 

over virtual court proceedings using video 

conferencing technology.

1

Means are based on a 6-point agreement rating scale. 3.5 is the midpoint of the rating scale

2Red Star - statistically significant difference between means score of respondents. The difference is not due to change.

5.4

Judges (n=41)

Employees rated two questions 

significantly higher than attorneys 

(See red stars)

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 33

Ease of Use Observations:

Each question in this category was rated 

favorably by survey respondents. All mean 

scores are above the mid-point of the 

rating scale.

The two highest rated questions in this 

category were: (1) once I learned to use 

Zoom it was easy to use for video court 

proceedings and (2) I feel competent to 

participate in video court proceedings, 

and for judicial officers, I feel comfortable 

presiding over virtual court proceedings 

using video conferencing technology. 

Employees gave a significantly higher 

rating to the first question than attorneys.

Employee respondents rated two 

questions in this category – 2 – Ease of 

Use – significantly higher than attorneys: 

(1) Zoom was easy to use for video 

court proceedings and (2) video court 

proceedings were handled consistently 

across courtrooms. 

Attorneys provided a “somewhat agree” 

rating to this question: video court 

proceedings were handled consistently 

across courtrooms; consistent procedures, 

protocols, and practices were used 

throughout the Court. This was the lowest 

rated question in this survey category. 

Employees rated this question significantly 

higher than attorneys.

Attorneys who had been litigating cases 

10 years or less felt more competent to 

participate in video court proceedings 

than attorneys who had litigated for 11 

years or more.

Statistically Significant Differences 

in Mean Scores

#2 Ease of Use: By Number of Years Litigating 

Cases and/or Appearing for Court Hearings/Trials

Attorneys who had litigated for 10 years or less 

rated the following question significantly higher than 

attorneys who have litigated cases for 11-20 years 

and more than 20 years. 

“I feel competent to participate in video court 

proceedings.”

#2 Ease of Use: By Area of the Court and Position – 

Court and Clerk’s Office Employees

Respondents from the criminal area rated this 

category – set of questions – significantly lower than 

respondents from the family and juvenile areas and 

bailiffs rated this category significantly lower than 

court staff who provide direct client services. 

Criminal division respondents rated the following 

question significantly lower than respondents from 

family and juvenile areas and bailiffs rated it significantly 

lower than staff who provide direct client services: 

“Once I learned to use Zoom interpretation, it was 

easy to use for video court proceedings”

Bailiff respondents rated the following questions 

significantly lower than staff who provide direct 

client services:

“Once I/we learned how to use Zoom, the time it took 

to conduct video court proceedings was reasonable.”

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
34 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

1 2 3 3.5 4 5 6

Attorneys (n=410) Employees (n=182)

#3 TRUST IN VIDEO COURT PROCEEDINGS

COMPARISON OF ATTORNEYS AND EMPLOYEES (in mean scores1)

5.1

5.3

3.2

2.1

In my opinion, video court proceedings are 

an acceptable method for conducting many 

calendars/types of hearings.

In my opinion, video court proceedings are 

an acceptable method for conducting 

CIVIL JURY TRIALS.

In my opinion, video court proceedings are an 

acceptable method for conducting 

CRIMINAL JURY TRIAL.

1

Means are based on a 6-point agreement rating scale. 3.5 is the 

midpoint of the rating scale

1 2 3 3.5 4 5 6

Attorneys (n=410) Employees (n=182)

#4 OVERALL EXPERIENCE/FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS - VCP

COMPARISON OF ATTORNEYS AND EMPLOYEES (in mean scores1)

4.8

5.2

Given my overall experience to date, I 

recommend that the Court continue using 

video court proceedings for many legal 

matters/cases with the understanding that 

the Court will continue to evaluate and modify 

practices as needed.

1

Means are based on a 6-point agreement rating scale. 3.5 is the 

midpoint of the rating scale

2Red Star - statistically significant difference between means score of 

respondents. The difference is not due to change.

Employees rated this question significantly 

higher than attorneys (See red star)

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 35

Trust in Video Court Proceedings Observations:

This is the lowest rated survey category by attorneys. 

The average ratings for two of the three survey 

questions for attorneys were BELOW the mid-point 

of the rating scale; they received unfavorable ratings 

by attorneys.

Attorneys gave unfavorable ratings to two questions: 

(1) In my opinion, video court proceedings are an 

acceptable method for conducting CIVIL JURY TRIALS 

(attorneys “disagreed somewhat”); and (2) in my 

opinion, video court proceedings are an acceptable 

method for conducting CRIMINAL JURY TRIALS 

(attorneys “disagreed”).

Statistically Significant 

Differences in Mean Scores

#3 Trust in Video Court Proceedings

Commissioners rated this question 

significantly lower than staff who provide 

direct client services.

“In my opinion, video court proceedings 

are an acceptable method for conducting 

many calendars/types of hearings.”

Overall Experience/Future 

Recommendations Observations:

This category included one question, which was 

rated favorably by survey respondents. The mean 

scores are above the mid-point of the rating scale.

Attorney and employee respondents 

“recommend the Court continue using 

video court proceedings for many legal 

matters/ cases (with the understanding 

that the Court will continue to evaluate 

and modify practices as needed).

#4 Overall Experience/Future 

Recommendations

Bailiffs rated the following question 

significantly lower than staff who 

provide direct client services. (Note: The 

study revealed that bailiffs’ jobs were 

most adversely affected by the new 

virtual procedures. Further explanation 

and insights are provided below.) 

“Given my overall experience, I 

recommend that the Court continue 

using video court proceedings for many 

legal matters/cases.”

Attorney and employee respondents gave favorable ratings on “using video court proceedings as a method 

for conducting many calendars/types of hearings.” However, attorneys disagreed somewhat that “video court 

proceedings are an acceptable method for CIVIL JURY TRIALS” and disagreed that video court proceedings are an 

acceptable method for conducting CRIMINAL JURY TRIALS.” 

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
36 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

1 2 3 3.5 4 5 6

Employees (n=182) Judges (n=41)

#5 IMPACT ON WORK/STAFF: VIRTUAL COURT PROCEEDINGS

EMPLOYEES ONLY (in mean scores1)

4.3

5.3

5.4

4.9

4

3.8

The training materials that were available to 

court employees were sufficient for learning 

how to conduct video court proceedings.

I feel competent to host, assist with, and/or 

participate in video court proceedings using 

video conferencing technology.

My assignment area/department handled virtual 

court proceedings similarly; we all used consistent 

procedures, protocols, and/or practices.

While how I do my work has changed 

significantly with video court proceedings, my 

workload overall has stayed the same.

It takes me about the same amount of time to do 

my work now with video court proceedings as it 

did when the Court conducted in-person hearings.

Over time, I found effective ways to mange 

my work even with the new technologies, 

processes, and pressures caused by the many 

changes.

If permitted, I’m (or would be) about to do 

ALL aspects of my job related to video court 

proceedings while working remotely.

1

Means are based on a 6-point agreement rating scale. 3.5 is the 

midpoint of the rating scale

2Red Star - statistically significant difference between means score of 

respondents. The difference is not due to change.

4.8

4.7

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 37

Impact on Work/Staff Observations:

While all of the average ratings on this set of 

questions were above the mid-point of the 

rating scale, there is considerable variability 

across the seven questions.

The highest rated question for employees 

was their level of competence hosting and 

participating in virtual court proceedings, and 

for judges, their comfort in presiding over 

virtual court proceedings.

Statistically Significant 

Differences in Mean Scores

#5 Impact of Work and Staff Questions

By Area of the Court

Criminal area respondents rated this category 

– set of questions – significantly lower than 

respondents from the family area. 

Civil area respondents rated the following 

question significantly lower than family area 

respondents:

“It takes me about the same amount of time to 

do my work now with video court proceedings 

as it did when the Court conducted in-person 

hearings.”

Respondents from the criminal area rated the 

question below significantly lower than family 

area respondents: 

“Over time, I found effective ways to manage my 

work even with the new technologies, process, 

and pressures caused by the many changes.”

Criminal area respondents gave significantly 

lower ratings to the following question than 

respondents who work in more than one area:

“If permitted, I am (or would be) able to 

do ALL aspects of my job related to video 

court proceedings while working remotely 

(including hearing preparations, electronic 

exhibits, interpreter services, troubleshooting, 

supporting judges, etc.)”

Virtual court proceedings 

profoundly changed how 

work is done throughout the 

Court and Clerk’s Office. The 

two lowest rated questions 

related to the impact of 

virtual court proceedings 

on work and staff were: 

(1) how much time it takes 

to conduct video court 

proceedings (vs. in-person) 

and (2) the resulting changes 

to overall workload. 

Respondents from the 

criminal area and bailiffs 

gave significantly lower 

ratings than other groups.

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
38 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

Bailiff respondents gave significantly 

lower ratings to this entire set of 

questions than courtroom clerks 

and staff who provide direct client 

services. 

Bailiff respondents rated all questions 

except one significantly lower than at 

least one other employee group. The 

employee groups were commissioners, 

courtroom clerks, other courtroom 

staff, and staff who provide direct 

client services. The question that was 

NOT rated significantly lower was: 

“I feel competent to host, assist with, 

and/or participate in video court 

proceedings.”

Bailiff respondents rated the following 

question significantly lower than 

commissioners, courtroom clerks, 

and staff who provide direct client 

services: 

“While how I do my work has 

changed significantly with video court 

proceedings, my workload overall has 

stayed about the same.”

Bailiff respondents rated the following 

question significantly lower than 

courtroom clerks: 

“It takes me about the same amount 

of time to do my work now with video 

court proceedings as it did when the 

Court conducted in-person hearings.” 

Bailiff respondents rated the remaining 

questions significantly lower than staff 

who provide direct client services: 

“The training materials that were 

available to court employees were 

sufficient for learning how to conduct 

video court proceedings.”

“My assignment area/ department 

handled virtual court proceedings 

similarly; we all used consistent 

procedures, protocols, and/or practices.”

“If permitted, I am (or would be) able 

to do ALL aspects of my job related 

to video court proceedings while 

working remotely (including hearing 

preparations, electronic exhibits, 

interpreter services, troubleshooting, 

supporting judges, etc.).”

Statistically Significant Differences in Mean Scores

#5 Impact of Work and Staff Questions By Position

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 39

Overall Satisfaction with 

Virtual Court Proceedings

Attorney and employee respondents endorsed the 

use of virtual court proceedings; they gave high 

satisfaction ratings. Many are likely to recommend 

that others involved in a court matter proceed with 

virtual court proceedings, if continued by the Court. 

Narrative Questions: 

Summary of Comments and Suggestions

The surveys included a narrative question, which 

afforded attorney and employee respondents an 

opportunity to provide comments, suggestions, and/

or explain their responses to the scaled questions. 

Many provided narrative comments. Judicial officers 

also provided responses to questions about virtual 

court proceedings at the virtual judge’s retreat 

held in September 2021. Below is a summary of 

comments received. 

Attorney Respondents – 

Virtual Court Proceedings

Comments from attorneys were reviewed and 

organized into 3 themes: (1) benefits of virtual court 

proceedings; (2) concerns about virtual proceedings; 

and (3) suggestions for improvements. See the 

tables below for a summary of attorney comments. 

In sum, most attorneys said virtual court proceedings 

are appropriate for some types of hearings/legal 

matters. However, some attorneys are opposed 

to virtual civil and criminal trials. A more detailed 

summary with examples of comments provided by 

attorneys is provided in Appendix B.

1. Increase access to justice.

2. Save time and money.

3. Increase efficiency.

4. Are an effective way to keep people 

physically safe and healthy.

5. Are more convenient 

(than in-person proceedings).

6. Make it easier to attend/participate in for 

many people (e.g., litigants, parties, 

witnesses, attorneys, less time off work, 

less childcare needed).

7. Are an effective way to resolve many 

legal matters.

Benefits of Virtual Proceedings

Concerns of Virtual Proceedings

ATTORNEYS

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON VIRTUAL 

COURT PROCEEDINGS

1. Loss of personal/human contact 

and interaction.

2. Distractions of jurors, judges, other 

court participants.

3. Juror misconduct and low engagement.

4. It is difficult to assess the credibility 

of witnesses.

5. Virtual proceedings exclude people 

who do not have or know how to use 

technology.

6. Technological glitches.

7. Loss of civility and professionalism 

(of judges, opposing attorneys, 

litigants). People are more aggressive 

and less courteous when on Zoom.

8. Virtual trials are not taken seriously.

9. Virtual interpreting is much slower 

than when in-person.

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
40 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

ATTORNEYS

SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT (SUMMARY OF NARRATIVE COMMENTS)

Technology/

Procedures

Technology and procedures need to be improved – resolve technology issues/glitches; 

develop protocols that notify parties/attorneys if the judge is running late so you are not 

in virtual limbo, etc.

Cost/Takes 

Too Long

 The virtual hearing seems to work fine, but the process of getting the certified orders/

copies after the hearing does not work very well. King County costs 50% more and takes 

10 times longer to obtain the completed paperwork than several other counties. 

Commissioners 

- Use Video

Commissioners should be using video. Not being able to see the Commissioner is 

problematic and not recommended in the future.

Information on 

Website

Update the Court’s website with current information. Instructions were not consistent. 

Provide more training to the clerks so they are able to answer questions, etc.

Standard 

Screen

There needs to be a standard screen or organized standard screen for all participants so 

that technology is not used as an advantage in litigation based on amount of money or 

production costs a party can afford. Need an equal/level playing field for using/viewing 

evidence presented to a jury.

Contempt 

of Court 

Procedures

Need to establish a procedure for contempt of court proceedings when the litigant is 

virtual and jail is ordered. 

Electronic 

Documents

Need a better way to handle documents in jury trials especially during cross 

examination. Current practices – sending documents to witnesses, instructing them of 

where to look, etc. – are very clunky; need a software solution to this problem.

Consistent 

Procedures

If virtual proceedings are continued, standardized procedures are needed. Currently 

practices are not standardized; every court has its own rules and procedures.

Open/

Viewable Civil 

Trials

Need a way to make civil trials/hearings open and viewable.

The table below provides a summary of attorneys’ suggestions for improvement.

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 41

EMPLOYEE RESPONDENTS – 

VIRTUAL COURT PROCEEDINGS

Below is a summary of comments from court and 

clerk’s office employees regarding virtual court 

proceedings. Responses are organized into (1) 

benefits; (2) positive experiences, and (3) negative 

experiences/effects of virtual proceedings. 

1. Virtual is more efficient, more convenient, 

and saves time and money for attorneys, 

clients, and some staff who previously 

had to travel to court for hearings (e.g., 

less time consuming, no commute time, 

no parking/ transportation costs, etc.).

2. Access to justice is improved – reduces 

the cost of going to court (e.g., less time 

off work, no childcare, less time consuming).

3. Virtual hearings result in higher 

participation rates for youth, families, and 

community providers.

4. Appearance rates have increased.

5. Reduces foot traffic at the courthouse – 

helps keep people safe and healthy.

6. Cases continue to move/get resolved.

Benefits of Virtual Proceedings

Positive Experiences w/Virtual Proceedings

1. Co-workers, clients, youth, and 

parents/family members have expressed 

appreciation for having the option to 

participate in hearings, proceedings, and 

meetings virtually.

2. There are many benefits to virtual 

proceedings; they should be continued 

and/or expanded in the future.

1. The Court did not develop a global/

courtwide response to virtual proceedings/ 

virtual jury selection; it was chaotic initially. 

Progress also was impeded because some 

departments were slow to use Zoom.

2. The workload of bailiffs has increased 

with virtual proceedings and virtual 

trials/ virtual jury selection – e.g., multiple 

emails negotiating orders; many emails 

from jurors; jurors need assistance with 

technology; scheduling continuances; and 

other attorney/court communication. Many 

functions that were previously completed 

by attorneys, jury staff, and clerks are now 

done by bailiffs. Bailiffs are unable to do 

other aspects of case management while 

monitoring a virtual trial and get 

backlogged because they cannot multi-task.

3. Bailiffs are required to be in the courtroom 

whereas clerks have been/are remote for 

the most part; this requires bailiffs to 

process the orders. Other duties that fall 

to the bailiffs when clerks are remote 

include: soundchecks, filing orders, exhibit 

stipulations, managing in-person exhibits, 

securing assistance when FTR went down, etc. 

4. Virtual jury selection is very time consuming.

5. Exhibits are not handled uniformly; this 

is problematic for expert witnesses; file 

stamping exhibits is still problematic for 

clerks.

6. Technical issues ensued - Not everyone 

has a strong, stable internet connection to 

participate in virtual proceedings; there is/

was a lack of tech support.

7. It is difficult for judicial officers to assess 

the credibility of parties when virtual; 

virtual is more time consuming than in-person.

Negative Experiences / Effects

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
42 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

EMPLOYEES

SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT (SUMMARY OF NARRATIVE COMMENTS)

The table below provides a summary of suggestions provided by court and clerk’s office employees.

Training More training and education are needed – for staff and the public.

Define Roles

The roles of various court/clerk’s office employees / judicial officers need to be clearly 

defined – e.g., who guides participants through introductions; the process needs to be 

orderly and smooth, not chaotic.

Universal 

Practices

Bailiffs can manage if the Courts develop universal practices that will be used across 

courts/courtrooms; if we schedule differently allowing time between trials to catch up 

on case management work; and or if more assistance is provided.

Improve Process 

- Electronic 

Exhibits

Need to improve / streamline the process for marking electronic exhibits (clerks); 

forms/ procedures need to be updated for electronic exhibits, how to handle 

depositions, etc.

Balance 

Workloads

The workloads of courtroom staff (bailiffs, clerks, others) should be evaluated and 

rebalanced. Work equity needs to be revisited to reduce burnout.

Open to Virtual 

Clerking Judges should be more accepting of remote clerking since all can be handled virtually.

JUDICIAL OFFICERS – VIRTUAL 

COURT PROCEEDINGS INCLUDING 

USE OF ELECTRONIC EXHIBITS 

Judicial officers (judges and commissioners) were 

asked to discuss their experiences with virtual 

court proceedings and the use of electronic 

exhibits at the September 2021 virtual judges’ 

retreats. 

Summary of Discussions/Comments: 

Overall, most judges indicated they had great 

success using virtual court proceedings for all 

types of hearings and legal matters, including 

virtual bench and jury trials including virtual voir 

dire. Some had more experience than others 

conducting virtual proceedings. 

A few judicial officers indicated that they believe 

in-person hearings and trials are more effective 

than virtual. 

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 43

Judges also discussed:

“when calendars and hearing can/should be 

conducted virtually, with all parties and court 

participants participating via video conferencing 

technology (except judicial officers and courtroom 

staff)” and “when a hybrid arrangement might be 

most appropriate/ effective, when some parties 

and court participants are in person and others are 

participating virtually.” 

Summaries follow. Comments are grouped by: (1) 

benefits of continuing virtual court proceedings; 

(2) types of matters most conducive to virtual 

proceedings or a hybrid approach; (3) types of 

matters NOT conducive to virtual proceedings 

post-pandemic; (4) other circumstances when 

matters should be conducted in-person; and (5) 

suggestion.

1. Cost savings: to litigants, attorneys, 

the court 

2. Improves access to justice for many

3. Appears to increase diversity of the jury 

pool (anecdotal observations only)

4. Increases convenience to parties, families 

(e.g., caregivers, employed parties, reduces

need to appear for short matters, etc.)

5. Reduces foot traffic into and around the 

Court; reduces crowds in hallways, etc.

Benefits of Continuing Virtual Proceedings

Types of Matters Most Conducive to Virtual 

Proceedings or Hybrid Approach

1. Calendars, oral arguments, 

2. Motion hearings, pre-trial conferences, 

summary judgment motions, etc.

3. UFC and ITA matters

4. Family Treatment Court – in-patient 

proceedings (hybrid works best)

5. Pre-trial conferences (should be 

presumptively virtual)

6. Juvenile matters (except sentencing)

7. Civil jury trials (not all judicial officers agreed)

8. Jury selection 

9. Out of custody arrangements (should be 

default) – out of custody pleas

10. Omnibus/Case setting

11. Reviews, restitution, RALJ appeals

12. Drug court – hybrid is effective

13. Family law matters – virtual should be default

Types of Matters NOT Conducive to Virtual 

Proceedings Post-Pandemic

1. Civil jury trials (not all judges agreed)

2. Criminal jury trials (not all judges agreed)

3. Contempt of Court hearings

4. Administrative bookings

5. Outstanding warrants

6. Motions that require fingerprints, swabs, 

testimony, etc.

7. Sentencing on felony cases

8. Everything/all matters are appropriate for 

a hybrid/mix of virtual and in-person

1. When a controlled atmosphere is needed

2. When it is needed to determine credibility

3. When attorneys request in-person

Other Circumstances When Matters 

Should be Conducted In-Person

Suggestion: 

Future decisions about the use of virtual court 

proceedings should be based on primary goals/

values: e.g., Safety, Efficiency, Fairness, Accessibility.

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
44 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

Judicial Officers – Suggestions for Improving the Use of 

Electronic Exhibits (summary of narrative comments)

Judges were asked to discuss their experiences with electronic 

exhibits and provide suggestions for improvement. The table 

below provides a summary of their suggestions.

1. The current system works pretty well. Improve by 

having a separate place where only admitted exhibits 

can be viewed or where the court can see the status 

of exhibits.

2. Use ShareFile links for the witnesses to view 

independently (so jurors do not see prior to admission).

3. Create a standardized practice that will be adopted 

courtwide (e.g., what should be uploaded to 

ShareFile, etc.). A standardized/uniform practice is 

needed to reduce confusion of attorneys/others.

4. Provide a tech support hotline to assist people using 

ShareFile. 

5. Provide needed training – how to use ShareFile, how 

to share screen, consistent procedures, etc.

6. Use a different tool – a better integrated uploading 

platform. ShareFile is clunky and inadequate for 

storing exhibits (e.g., large exhibits won’t open, 

not good for images/ videos, ShareFile does not 

automatically reject documents improperly labeled, 

complex documents do not translate well for visual 

presentation, ShareFile is too slow - need something 

faster, etc.).

7. Train judicial officers and employees on new/

different tool.

8. Train attorneys; encourage them to practice prior to 

a trial; require attorneys to certify they are competent 

to upload documents, share screen, etc. prior to a 

hearing. 

9. Offer mandatory trainings for lawyers and litigants 

before a trial.

Improving the Use of Electronic Exhibits

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 45

EVALUATION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Our findings and recommendations relating to virtual court proceedings are summarized below:

Favorable Ratings. 

Overall, attorney and employee respondents 

gave favorable ratings to virtual court 

proceedings; the average ratings on each 

survey category were above the mid-point 

of the rating scale.

Significant Differences 

Among Employee Groups. 

There were statistically significant differences 

in each of the survey categories. In general: 

1. Employee respondents from 

the criminal area of the Court gave 

significantly lower average ratings, and 

respondents from the family and juvenile 

areas gave significantly higher average 

ratings to many of the survey questions.

2. Bailiff respondents gave significantly 

lower ratings on many of the questions 

than staff who provide direct client 

services.

3. The jobs and workloads of bailiffs 

appear to have been the most disrupted, 

changed, and adversely affected with 

virtual court proceedings. Bailiffs, who 

were in the courtroom, acquired 

additional responsibilities that were 

previously the responsibilities of 

courtroom clerks and attorneys. 

Responses of Civil Attorneys.

Most civil attorneys agreed that virtual 

proceedings are effective for some types 

of hearings/legal matters, however, some 

expressed opposition to virtual civil 

hearings, bench trials, and jury trials.

Differences by Years of Litigation 

Experience. 

Attorneys with less litigation experience 

(i.e., 10 years or less) felt more competent 

to participate in video court proceedings 

than attorneys who had litigated 11 or more 

years. Put another way, younger lawyers 

with presumably more experience with 

technology felt more competent to use it. 

Acceptability of Virtual Court 

Proceedings. 

Overall, attorney and employee respondents 

indicated virtual court proceedings are 

acceptable for many calendars/types 

of hearing. However, a few attorney 

respondents indicated that video court 

proceedings are not acceptable for entirely 

remote, civil jury trials.

FINDINGS

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
46 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

Continue Using Virtual Court 

Proceedings.

Based on overall experiences, both attorney 

and employee respondents recommended 

the Court continue to use virtual court 

proceedings for many legal matters/cases 

(with the understanding the Court will 

continue to evaluate and make improvements 

as warranted).

Endorsement of Virtual Court 

Proceedings.

Attorney and employee survey respondents 

w e r e s a t i s f i e d w i t h v i r t u a l c o u r t 

proceedings. Both groups endorsed virtual 

court proceedings and indicated they are 

likely to encourage others to participate in 

virtual court proceedings, if continued by 

the Court. 

Electronic Exhibits. 

ShareFile, the platform used to digitize 

exhibits, was deemed inadequate by many. 

The tool/platform needs to be improved, 

u p g r a d e d , o r r e p l a c e d . P r o c e s s e s 

for handling exhibits also need to be 

standardized. 

Benefits.

Many benefits were reported by attorneys, 

employees, and judicial officers. Increased 

access, increased convenience, greater 

efficiency, and lower costs to name a few 

were frequently mentioned. There also 

was widespread agreement that virtual 

proceedings are appropriate for many types 

of hearings and many types of cases. There 

was not general agreement on whether 

virtual proceedings were effective or 

appropriate for civil trials.

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 47

RECOMMENDATIONS: 

Continue with Virtual Court Proceedings.

Continue with virtual court proceedings. 

The findings from this evaluation support 

the continued use of virtual proceedings 

for most types of cases and for many types 

of hearings. Advocate for the use of video 

proceedings in KCSC. Define the appropriate 

and presumptive uses for virtual proceedings 

in KCSC. Update and implement court 

policies accordingly.

Increase Uniformity and Consistency. 

Promote uniformity and consistency in 

conducting virtual proceedings. Standardize 

procedures, processes, and practices building 

on successes and best practices from the 

past few years.

Train Judicial Officers, Bailiffs, and Court 

Employees. 

Continue training and provide other resources 

to judicial officers, bailiffs, and court 

employees on consistent procedures, best 

practices, and the technology including Zoom 

functionality. Ensure everyone is competent 

to oversee (and as needed, provide backup) on hosting and conducting virtual 

proceedings. 

Collaborate with Bar Associations. 

Continue communicating and collaborating 

with local attorneys and the Bar Associations 

to further refine and improve virtual court 

proceeding protocols and practices. 

Train Attorneys. 

Continue trainings and providing other 

resources to attorneys to increase the 

competence and confidence levels 

(knowledge, skills, and abilities), especially 

for those who are less comfortable with 

technology and appearing via video. Continue 

partnerships with bar associations as was 

done during the pandemic.

Re-evaluate and Balance Workloads of 

Courtroom Staff. 

Once practices are normalized, evaluate 

the virtual proceedings process and 

document new job duties/responsibilities, the 

workloads of courtroom staff, and division 

of labor. Change/update job descriptions of 

courtroom staff to reflect new scope of work, 

job duties/responsibilities, and skills needed 

to conduct virtual court proceedings. Realign 

duties and workloads as needed.

Replace Tool for Electronic Exhibits. 

Explore, invest in, and implement an improved 

tool/platform for electronic exhibits, or 

make changes/improvements to ShareFile 

(that address the concerns/problems noted 

above). Develop standardized procedures so 

consistent across the Court.

1 4

5

6

7

2

3

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
48 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

Virtual Interpretation - 4

Evaluation Findings and 

Recommendations

Virtual interpreting also was evaluated. Interpreters 

were surveyed separately. Questions focused on their 

experiences providing virtual interpreting services. 

A few questions about virtual interpreting also were 

asked of attorneys on the video court proceedings 

survey. Judicial officers also were asked about their 

experiences with virtual interpreting at the virtual 

judge’s retreat held in September 2021. 

The results are presented next. The findings and 

recommendations are presented at the end of this 

section. 

Ratings on Survey Categories 

The chart to the right shows the 

average ratings of interpreters on 

each of the survey categories. Also 

included are the average ratings 

for attorneys and judges on the 

“trust” question. The seven survey 

categories were:

1. Court Participant Experience

2. Ease of Use/Effective 

Use of Time

3. Court Assistance

4. Environment

5. Impact on Interpreters

6. Trust/Effectiveness

7. Overall Experience/ 

Recommendations

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 49

6

5

4

3.5

3

2

1

Court 

Participant

Experience

5.3

Ease of 

Use/Effective 

Use of Time

5.4

Court 

Assistance

4.6

5.5

Environment

4.8

Trust/

Effectiveness

4.3

Interpreters (n=74) Attorneys (n=410)

INTERPRETERS: VIRTUAL INTERPRETING

SURVEY CATEGORIES (in mean scores1)

Judges (n=44)

Impact on

Interpreters

4.9

4.7 4.6

5

Overall 

Experience/ 

Recommendations

1

Means are based on a 6-point agreement rating scale. 3.5 is the midpoint of the rating scale

Observations:

Interpreters rated each survey category favorably. 

All means scores are above the mid-point of the 

scale. The “Environment” questions, which related 

to where interpreters worked, were rated the 

highest followed by “Ease of Use” questions. 

Results on Each Survey Category

The next 7 charts provide the average ratings for 

the questions in the seven survey categories. 

NOTE: There are no statistically significant 

differences to report for interpreters by the 

number of times they provided virtual interpreting 

services to the KCSC in 2021 or by the number 

of years they have been providing interpreter 

services. 

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
50 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

Interpreters (n=74)

#1 COURT PARTICIPANT EXPERIENCE: VIRTUAL INTERPRETING

INTERPRETERS (in mean scores1)

1 2 3 3.5 4 5 6

5.5

4.8

5.2

5.5

Virtual interpreting during the pandemic 

was an effective way to provide language 

assistance to litigants so the Court could 

continue to move cases toward resolution.

The opportunity to provide interpretation 

virtually makes it easier for interpreters to 

participate in court proceedings.

Participating in virtual interpreting using video 

conferencing technology was convenient, it 

saved me time and money (eg. commute time, 

cost of public transportation, parking).

Virtual interpreting is an effective way to keep 

all court participants healthy and safe. 

1

Means are based on a 6-point agreement rating scale. 3.5 is the midpoint of the rating scale

#1 Court Participant Experience Observations:

Interpreters rated each question favorably; the 

mean scores are well above the midpoint of the 

rating scale. 

Using virtual interpreting during the pandemic 

was viewed “as a good way to move cases toward 

resolution, it was convenient – it saved time and 

money, and it was an effective way to keep all 

court participants healthy and safe.” 

#2 Ease of Use Observations:

Interpreters rated the questions in this category 

favorably. All mean scores are well above the midpoint of the rating scale.

Interpreters indicated that “once they learned how 

to use Zoom interpretation functionality, it was easy 

to use for court proceedings.” They also said that 

“having the ability to provide interpreting services 

virtually is efficient; their time was used well.”

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 51

Interpreters (n=74)

#2 EASE OF USE/EFFECTIVE USE OF TIME: VIRTUAL INTERPRETING

INTERPRETERS (in mean scores1)

1 2 3 3.5 4 5 6

Once I learned how to use Zoom 5.5

interpretation functionality, it was easy to use 

for court proceedings.

Having eh ability to provide interpreting 

services virtually is efficient for me; my time 

is/was used well.

1

Means are based on a 6-point agreement rating scale. 3.5 is the midpoint of the rating scale

5.5

Interpreters (n=74)

#3 COURT ASSISTANCE: VIRTUAL INTERPRETING

INTERPRETERS (in mean scores1)

1 2 3 3.5 4 5 6

Court staff were available to assist if I 4.6

encountered problems while providing virtual 

interpretation using Zoom.

1

Means are based on a 6-point agreement rating scale. 3.5 is the midpoint of the rating scale

#3 Court Assistance Observations:

Interpreters rated the question in this category 

favorably. The mean score is above the mid-point of 

the rating scale. However, this is the second to the 

lowest rated question by interpreter respondents.

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
52 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

Interpreters (n=74)

#4 INTERPRETER ENVIRONMENT: VIRTUAL INTERPRETING

INTERPRETERS (in mean scores1)

1 2 3 3.5 4 5 6

I had a quiet place from which to provide 5.6

virtual interpreting services.

I was able to participate virtually in the court 

proceeding without distractions.

1

Means are based on a 6-point agreement rating scale. 3.5 is the midpoint of the rating scale

5.4

#4 Interpreter Environment Observations:

Interpreters rated both questions well above the 

mid-point of the rating scale. 

Interpreters “agreed/strongly agreed” “that they 

have a quiet place from which to provide virtual 

interpreting services and they were able to 

participate virtually without distractions.”

#5 Impact on Interpreters Observations:

Interpreters rated all three questions favorably – 

above the mid-point of the rating scale – however, 

this category includes the question rated the 

lowest by interpreters.

Interpreters “felt competent to provide virtual 

interpretation to litigants involved in court 

proceedings and for the most part, the Court used 

consistent protocols and procedures for court 

proceedings.”

The lowest rated survey question by interpreter 

respondents was “that it takes the same amount of 

time to provide virtual interpretation as it did when 

the Court used in-person hearings.” Respondents 

“agreed somewhat” to this question.

#6 Trust/Effectiveness Observations:

Interpreters, attorneys, and judicial officers 

rated this question favorably. All indicated that 

“virtual interpreting is an effective way to provide 

interpreter services to litigants involved in court 

proceedings.” 

Interpreters rated this question 

significantly higher than attorney 

respondents. Attorney respondents 

“agreed somewhat” with this question.

Interpreters “agreed” that “they would trust virtual 

interpreting as a way to receive interpreter services 

for a court proceeding if they were a participant in 

a legal matter.”

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 53

Interpreters (n=74)

#5 IMPACT ON INTERPRETERS: VIRTUAL INTERPRETING

INTERPRETERS (in mean scores1)

1 2 3 3.5 4 5 6

5.5

4.8

4.1

I feel competent to provide virtual interpretation 

to litigants involved in court proceedings.

KCSC uses/used consistent protocols/

procedures for doing virtual court proceedings. 

It takes me about the same amount of time 

to provide virtual interpretation to litigants 

involved in court proceedings as it did when 

the Court conducted in-person hearings.

1

Means are based on a 6-point agreement rating scale. 3.5 is the midpoint of the rating scale

Interpreters (n=74)

#6 TRUST/EFFECTIVENESS: VIRTUAL INTERPRETING

INTERPRETERS, ATTORNEYS, JUDICIAL OFFICERS (in mean scores1)

1 2 3 3.5 4 5 6

4.9

4.3

4.9

Virtual interpreting is an effective way to 

provide interpreter service to litigants involved 

in court proceedings. / Virtual interpreting 

is an effective way to provide interpreter 

services to litigant. / Virtual interpretation is/

can be effective.

If I were a participant in a legal matter, I would 

trust virtual interpreting as a way to receive 

interpreter services for a court proceeding.

1

Means are based on a 6-point agreement rating scale. 3.5 is the midpoint of the rating scale

2Red Star - statistically significant difference between means score of respondents. The difference is not due to change.

Attorneys (n=410) Judges (n=44)

4.7

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
54 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

Interpreters (n=74)

#7 OVERALL EXPERIENCE - FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS: 

VIRTUAL INTERPRETING

INTERPRETERS AND ATTORNEYS (in mean scores1)

1 2 3 3.5 4 5 6

Given my overall experience, I recommend 

that the Court continue providing virtual 

interpretation as a way to provide interpreter 

services to litigants involved in court 

proceedings. / Given my overall experience, 

I recommend the Court continue providing 

virtual interpreting services.

1

Means are based on a 6-point agreement rating scale. 3.5 is the midpoint of the rating scale

4.7

#7 Overall Experience/Future 

Recommendation Observations:

Interpreters and attorneys “recommended that 

the Court continue providing virtual interpreting 

services, given their overall experiences.” Both 

respondent groups “agreed” with continuing 

virtual interpretation services in the future.

OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH 

VIRTUAL INTERPRETATION

Interpreter respondents endorsed the use of 

virtual interpreting; they gave high satisfaction 

ratings. Most are likely to recommend virtual 

interpreting services to people who need 

assistance, if continued by the Court. 

NARRATIVE QUESTIONS

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON VIRTUAL 

INTERPRETING 

The survey included a narrative question, which 

afforded interpreter respondents an opportunity 

to provide comments, suggestions, and/or explain 

their responses to the scaled questions. Judicial 

officers also provided comments about virtual 

interpreting. Following is a summary of comments 

received. 

Interpreter Respondents: 

Following is a list of what interpreter respondents 

most liked about virtual interpreting:

Attorneys (n=283)

5

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 55

Judicial Officers: 

At the September 2021 virtual Judge’s Retreat, judicial 

officers were asked: “under what circumstances 

should virtual/video interpretation be used in the 

future?” Following is a summary of the narrative 

comments provided by judicial officers.

What Interpreters Liked Most About 

Virtual Interpreting

1. It is an effective way to keep all court 

participants safe from COVID-19 as well 

as violence in downtown Seattle.

2. It saves time and money; it is efficient, 

effective, and convenient.

3. It increases flexibility and job satisfaction.

4. It should be continued; there are lots of 

benefits to virtual interpreting.

Suggestions for Improvement

Virtual Interpreting

1. The Court’s technology/equipment needs 

to be improved and/or upgraded. 

Cameras should provide a panoramic 

view of the courtroom so all court 

participants can be seen. Audio/ 

microphones are in need of improvement. 

It was difficult to hear in some instances.

2. The Court should use a platform 

that supports simultaneous translation 

rather than just consecutive translation. 

The proceedings take longer with using 

consecutive translation.

3. Proceedings overall take longer with 

virtual interpretation than when inperson. None-the-less the benefits 

outweigh this drawback.

4. Additional technical support is needed. 

Testing should be completed in advance 

of starting proceedings. 

5. Judges and staff should be trained on the 

use of the technology. 

6. Practices are inconsistent. Some judges 

do not support virtual interpretation; inperson appearances are required. 

When Virtual Interpretation Should Be Used

1. When most convenient for the parties 

and/or safety issues are of concern.

2. Upon agreement of parties.

3. Whenever the matter does not involve 

an evidentiary hearing.

4. When it is difficult to get an in-person 

interpreter (e.g., obscure language).

5. When parties in need of interpretation 

services are participating remotely or 

out of the area.

6. To ease the burden of court appearances 

on criminal defendants for some hearings.

7. For short, non-substantive/procedural 

hearings.

8. When local interpreters are unavailable. 

9. Freely in civil matters (unless there is a 

compelling reason not to).

10. For court calendars, antiharassment 

hearings, jury voir dire, all meetings.

11. Whenever it furthers access to justice 

and integrity of the court proceedings 

can be maintained.

12. When defendants are in custody.

13. As often as possible as long as everyone 

is able to understand and communicate 

with one another.

14. For all matters – virtual interpretations 

should be the default method especially 

for motions and bench trials.

15. When technology supports simultaneous 

interpretation.

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
RECOMMENDATIONS: 

Continue Virtual Interpreting as an Option. 

Continue providing virtual interpreting services as 

an option based on the benefits outlined in this 

study and the experiences of interpreters. Develop 

an internal policy recommending the use of virtual 

interpreting across all areas of the Court. 

Develop Consistent Procedures.

Develop standardized procedures for using virtual 

interpretation based on best practices and the 

Court’s experiences over the past few years.

Train Interpreters. 

Provide training / training materials to interpreters 

on Zoom functionality. Ensure they are competent 

to provide virtual interpreting services.

Train Judicial Officers, Bailiffs, & Court Employees.

Continue training and provide other resources to 

judicial officers, bailiffs, and court employees on 

consistent procedures, best practices, and the 

technology including Zoom functionality; ensure 

everyone is competent to oversee (and as needed, 

provide back-up) on the use of virtual interpretation. 

Provide resources that will enhance the process 

(e.g., checklists, troubleshooting tips, frequently 

asked questions with answers, etc.). 

Upgrade Technology. 

Ensure all courtrooms are equipped with the 

technology needed to support virtual interpreting. 

Invest in technology that will enhance virtual 

interpreting for all involved – litigants, interpreters, 

judicial officers, attorneys, and employees.

Further Evaluate; Include Court Users. 

As the Court continues to improve and refine its 

practices and procedures related to virtual court 

proceedings, further evaluate the use of virtual 

interpreting. Include court users in the evaluation; 

gather information directly from them about their 

experiences.

EVALUATION FINDINGS

Our findings and recommendations relating to 

virtual interpreting services are summarized 

next.

56 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

Favorable Ratings. 

Overall, interpreter and attorney 

respondents gave favorable ratings on 

all aspects of virtual interpreting. The 

interpreter’s environment and ease of use/

efficient use of time were rated the highest 

by interpreters. 

Trust and Recommend Continuing 

Virtual Interpreting. 

Based on overall experience, interpreter 

and attorney respondents indicated 

that they trust virtual interpreting and 

recommend the Court continue providing 

it as an option. Interpreters rated this area 

significantly higher than attorneys. 

Effectiveness. 

Interpreter, attorney, and judge respondents 

indicated virtual interpreting is an effective 

way to provide interpreter services to 

litigants involved in court proceedings. 

Interpreters gave a significantly higher rating 

than attorneys. 

High Satisfaction. 

Interpreters endorsed the use of virtual 

interpreting services; they gave high 

satisfaction ratings.

Takes Longer than In-Person 

Interpretation. 

Some interpreter respondents noted that 

virtual interpretation takes longer than inperson interpretation. 

1

2

3

4

5

6

SECTION 3 Virtual Court Proceedings and Virtual Interpretation
History of This Court’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic

SECTION 4: 

Virtual Jury Selection

57
58 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

This section includes the experiences of King 

County Superior Court (KCSC/Court) using 

virtual voir dire (i.e., virtual jury selection) 

during the coronavirus pandemic. Also 

included are the findings from the research 

study. This section is organized as follows: 

Overview

How Virtual Jury Selection was 

Conducted in Conducted in King 

County, and Summary of Experiences 

and Recommendations

Research Study – Evaluation of Virtual 

Jury Selection

- Research Methodology

- Characteristics of Participants

- Virtual Jury Selection – 

Detailed Results, Findings, and 

Recommendations

Overview

Virtual jury selection – the virtual voir dire process 

– implemented in response to the coronavirus 

pandemic in July 2020 was chosen by the 

Court’s judicial and administrative leadership as a 

promising practice worthy of further evaluation. It 

aligned with the Court’s core values of equity and 

social justice, access, fairness, service to the public, 

and innovation. 

Virtual jury selection also met the agreed-upon 

criteria for selecting the few promising practices, 

which would undergo further study. The new, 

virtual voir dire practice: 

Had a broad impact across many divisions 

and administrative areas of the court and 

involved prospective jurors, the public, and 

attorneys.

Had potential long-term benefits for 

the Court such as being cost effective, 

increasing efficiency, and improving public 

service.

Provided an opportunity to examine 

experiences and data to confirm (or 

disconfirm) opinions and/or differing 

experiences with the new, virtual process.

How Virtual Jury Selection 

was Conducted in King 

County

King County Superior Court adopted a virtual 

jury selection process during the pandemic for 

jury trials. This was required to depopulate the 

courthouses as part of our public health plan. 

Without it, we determined that physical distancing 

would have been difficult or impossible.  Of all the 

innovations adopted during the pandemic, this 

process was the most challenging. 

Jurors answered their summons by going to an 

online portal, which put them into a pool available 

for assignment.  The jury room initially handled the 

venire but upon trial assignment, this responsibility 

passed to the judicial assistant (we call bailiffs). 

This and other responsibilities that passed to the 

bailiffs proved to be challenging (see discussion 

below, which elaborates on how workloads of 

bailiffs were affected). Jurors were contacted by 

e-mail and phone to participate in a web-based 

questionnaire. In this questionnaire, the court 

obtained general biographical information, asked 

1

2

1

2

3

SECTION 4 Virtual Jury Selection

3
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 59

case specific questions proposed by counsel, and 

provided a section for jurors to request excusal 

from service for hardship or prejudice. 

Upon completion, the bailiff compiled the results 

of the questionnaire in an Excel spreadsheet 

which was shared with the parties/litigants. The 

court and counsel reviewed the hardship/excusal 

requests and scheduled the remaining unexcused 

jurors to attend jury selection sessions via the 

Zoom virtual conferencing platform. The remaining 

jurors appeared in groups of roughly twenty for 

each voir dire session. The court read its general 

jury instructions and counsel then inquired of the 

jurors’ qualifications to serve on the trial. As with 

video trials themselves, counsel could appear for 

this process via Zoom or in person, and the voir 

dire proceedings were broadcast on large screens 

in the courtroom. Once the court completed the 

scheduled panels, or once the court obtained 

enough qualified jurors to satisfy peremptory 

challenges, counsel would exercise peremptory 

challenges and a jury would be impaneled. The 

selected jurors were then notified by e-mail with 

reporting instructions for the trial itself. They were 

to report in person for a criminal trial, or report by 

video for a civil trial.

These are the practices we currently use today. 

We summonsed far more people for video voir 

dire than in-person voir dire. With virtual voir 

dire, we are not limited by the size of our jury 

assembly rooms. As a result, video voir dire added 

hundreds of new trial days to our calendar because 

we never run out of jurors and no cases wait for 

jurors, regardless of priority. In the past, with inperson voir dire, lawyers and judges assigned lower 

priority cases, criminal or civil, often waited several 

days to a week to begin jury selection.

Transitioning to jury selection by 

Zoom during the COVID-19 pandemic 

allowed King County Superior Court 

to hold jury trials beginning in August 

of 2020. KCSC consulted public 

health experts at the University of 

Washington who advised against 

in-person jury selection during the 

pandemic because in-person jury 

selection required large numbers of 

people being amassed in the jury 

room and courtroom. 

Thanks directly to video jury selection, 

the court never had to significantly 

delay a trial due to a lack of jurors. 

Pre-COVID, the size of the courthouse 

jury room limited the number of jurors 

available for trial each day. At KCSC, 

the Kent courthouse jury room has 

a capacity for 150 jurors; the Seattle 

courthouse jury room has a capacity 

for 300 jurors. As a result, lower 

priority trials often waited for days 

or weeks to being jury selection. By 

holding jury selection by zoom, the 

court essentially has an unlimited 

supply of jurors. KCSC now summons 

one thousand jurors per day for jury 

selection. The result is that every trial 

receives jurors when requested. 

 

SECTION 4 Virtual Jury Selection

EXPERIENCES AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Our experiences and recommendations relating 

to virtual voir dire are summarized next.

EXPERIENCES
60 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

Pre-COVID-19, most trials had a jury venire of 50 

jurors. During the COVID-19 pandemic, each trial 

had a jury venire of approximately 120 jurors. 

This increase was due to a higher percentage of 

jurors requesting hardship excusals. The increase 

in hardship excusals was the result of many 

factors including jurors having COVID-19, jurors 

being fearful of COVID-19, jurors having increased 

childcare responsibilities, and jurors having 

increased financial instability.

Zoom jury selection also caused a dramatic 

change in job responsibilities for court employees.  

Specifically, the jury room employees had very 

different jobs because they communicated 

with hundreds of additional jurors through 

email and telephone, instead of in-person at the 

courthouse. The bailiffs (our judicial assistants) 

had to communicate with venire panels of 120 

jurors through email and phone calls, instead of 

communicating with them in-person.  Moreover, 

bailiffs have had to arrange for jurors to participate 

in zoom jury selection. 

Judicial officers report, anecdotally, greater 

diversity in empaneled juries. Judicial officers 

report that all jurors are questioned rather than 

only a limited number of jurors in the front of the 

room. Judicial officers report that the Washington 

State Batson Rule GR 37 is much easier to 

administer because the jurors are all questioned 

and can be seen much closer and more easily on 

the video screen, resulting in a better record. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: 

Evaluate the virtual voir dire process 

from start to finish focusing on 

and analyzing new job duties and 

responsibilities, the workloads and 

division of labor of all courtroom staff 

(i.e., bailiffs, courtroom clerks, others). 

Change/update the job descriptions 

of bailiffs and other staff to include 

the new scope of work, job duties/ 

responsibilities, and skills needed to 

conduct virtual voir dire. Realign duties 

and workloads as needed.

Continue video voir dire as a business 

practice. For us, this will depend on 

rule adoption by the Washington 

State Supreme Court. We strongly 

encourage other courts to experiment. 

The most difficult challenge is 

becoming competent with the practice, 

which leads to video voir dire taking no 

longer than in-person voir dire. 

Develop and publish best practices, 

and train regularly. As with videovirtual trials and hearings, this process 

requires best practices and processes 

to be adopted and regular training. Our 

Court is in the process of doing this as 

indicated and expects to be completed 

by the end of 2022. 

1

2

3

SECTION 4 Virtual Jury Selection
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 61

Research Study – Evaluation 

of Virtual Jury Selection

The virtual jury selection process was evaluated in 

the summer and fall of 2021. This section includes: 

The research methodology (used for this 

part of the evaluation).

Characteristics of study participants.

Virtual Jury Selection - Evaluation results, 

findings, and recommendations.

Research Methodology – Virtual Jury 

Selection Survey Audience

Prospective jurors involved in both civil and 

criminal matters and attorneys involved in civil 

matters were the primary audience for this part of 

the study. Court employees also were asked a few 

questions related to their experiences with virtual 

jury selection as part of the survey administered to 

them on virtual court proceedings. 

Survey questions were developed and finalized in the 

summer of 2021 in collaboration with project staff, 

jury staff, and the Court’s Jury Committee (comprised 

of judges and jury services program staff). Court 

staff compiled the names and email addresses of 

prospective jurors that participated in the virtual jury 

selection process, and not limited to those selected 

to serve, in criminal and civil matters between March 

and May 2021. Court staff also compiled the names 

of attorneys associated with at least one civil case 

that advanced through the virtual jury selection 

process between January and June 2021. The Court’s 

Division Directors identified the court staff who had 

participated in virtual court proceedings. A subset 

of that group, who had experience with virtual jury 

selection, completed the virtual jury process questions 

on the employee survey.

Virtual jury selection surveys were 

administered in August – September 2021 to: 

(1) prospective jurors that participated in 

the virtual jury selection process in civil and 

criminal matters between March and May 

2021; 

(2) attorneys associated with at least one 

civil case that advanced through the virtual 

jury selection process between January and 

June 2021; and 

(3) employees who had experience with the 

virtual jury selection process.

Survey Administration

The surveys were administered in August – 

September 2021. The Court’s leadership sent an 

initial email in August 2021 announcing the effort. 

It was sent to prospective jurors and attorneys 

who appeared on civil cases. The researcher 

followed soon thereafter with an email to survey 

invitees. It included the survey link and additional 

survey details. The response rate was monitored, 

and reminders and updates were sent as needed. 

The table below provides details about the survey 

audience and number of respondents.

1

2

3

SECTION 4 Virtual Jury Selection
62 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

Survey Questions

The surveys of prospective jurors and attorneys 

on civil cases were similar but not identical. A few 

questions asked of prospective jurors were not 

asked of attorneys and vice versa. Differences are 

noted in the results presented below.

The survey of court and clerk’s office employees 

included a couple of questions focusing on the 

virtual jury selection process. For the questions 

that are similar to those for jurors and attorneys, 

comparisons are provided. Most of questions for 

employees focused on the effects of virtual jury 

selection on their work. All findings are presented to 

the right.

SURVEYS

The Likert-scaled questions were grouped into the 

following categories:

1. Access, Convenience, and Safety / 

Experience of Jurors

2. Ease of Use

3. Court / Staff Assistance

4. Environment

5. Timeliness / Effectiveness

6. Trust and Confidence / Future Recommendations 

7. Overall Experience

8. Impact on Work/Staff

Virtual Jury Selection Survey Questions

(6-point agreement rating scale5)

3 The number of employee respondents is lower because only those that participated in virtual voir dire completed this set of questions. Those who did not participate in 

virtual jury selection were instructed to skip this set of questions. 75 court employees completed this section; the others skipped these questions and proceeded to the 

next section of the Virtual Court Proceedings survey.

4 This is the overall response rate to the Virtual Court Proceedings survey, which included a subset of questions on virtual voir dire. 75 court employees (out of the 182 

that completed the Virtual Court Proceeding Survey or 41%) completed the virtual jury selection questions. 

5 A 6-point agreement rating scale was used for the surveys where 6 = strongly agree; 5 = agree; 4 = agree somewhat; 3 = disagree somewhat; 2 = disagree; and 1 = 

strongly disagree. N/A also was an option, which included don’t know, not sure, and/or not applicable. 3.5 is the midpoint of a 6-point rating scale.

Total Number 

Surveyed (N=___)

# of Respondents

(n=___)

Response Rate

(in %s)

Prospective Jurors

Surveyed in Aug. – Sept. ‘21 797 251 32%

Civil Case Attorneys Only

Surveyed in Aug. – Sept. ‘21 245 94 38%

Employees

Surveyed in Nov. ‘21 279 753 65%4

SURVEY RESPONDENTS

SECTION 4 Virtual Jury Selection
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 63

1

2

3

In addition to the previous, the surveys included: 2

An overall satisfaction question. 

An open-ended, narrative question where 

respondents could explain their responses or 

provide suggestions. 

A couple of demographic questions 

providing characteristics of respondents 

including gender/ gender identity, race/ 

ethnicity, whether juror respondents 

were selected to sit on a jury, equipment 

respondents used, and the types of cases 

they were involved in.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

The results to the scaled questions are presented 

in proportions (i.e., percentages) and mean ratings 

(i.e., averages). When interpreting the mean scores, 

the higher the mean score, the more favorable the 

rating. Higher mean scores represent stronger levels 

of agreement. Additionally, 3.5 is the midpoint of a 

6-point rating scale. An average rating above 3.5 is on 

the agreement side of the rating scale – the results are 

favorable, and below 3.5 is on the disagreement side 

of the rating scale – the results are unfavorable. 

Two common statistical tests were used to test for 

significant differences between and among mean 

scores. Tests for differences in means (t tests) look 

for differences between two groups. Analysis of 

Variance (ANOVA) looks for differences among 

multiple groups. Statistically significant differences 

are reported at the .05 or 95% confidence level 

(common for social science research). 

The researcher completed a content analysis on the 

narrative responses. 

Characteristics of Study Participants

Juror Respondents

Following are the characteristics of prospective 

juror respondents:

• 49% of respondents were female, 44% were 

male, 2% were other (transgender, 

nonconforming) and 5% preferred not to answer 

or skipped the question.

• 76% of respondents were white, 12% were Asian, 

3% were 2 or more races; 1% was Hispanic/

Latino; .5% was African American/Black, 9% 

preferred not to answer or skipped the question.

• 9% of respondents were 18-29 years of age, 

30% were 30-44 years of age, 31% were 45-

59 years of age, 23% were 60-74 years of age, 

4% were 75 years or older, and 4% preferred 

not to answer or skipped the question.

• 31% of survey respondents were selected to 

sit as a juror and 67% were not selected to sit 

as a juror. 

• 67% of respondents did not know the type of 

case/trial they were involved in. Of those 

that knew, 15% of respondents were involved in 

a criminal trial and 18% were involved in a 

civil trial.

• A majority (87%) of survey respondents used a 

desktop/laptop for virtual jury selection. 

SECTION 4 Virtual Jury Selection
64 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

PROSPECTIVE JURORS - VIRTUAL JURY SELECTION

BY RACE/ETHNICITY, GENDER/GENDER IDENTITY, AND AGE

(n=251)

*Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding

1%

8%

76%

3%

12%

Hispanic/Latino (n=3)

White (Non-Hispanic) (n=190)

AfricanAmerican (Non-Hispanic) (n=1)

Asian (Non-Hispanic) (n=30)

2 or more races (Non-Hispanic) (n=7)

Prefer not to answer (n=20)

RACE/ETHNICITY

1%

5%

49%

44%

Female (n=123)

Male (n=111)

Transgender (n=2)

Gender Variant/Non Conforming

Prefer not to answer (n=12)

GENDER/GENDER IDENTITY

4%

30%

23%

AGE

0%

1%

4% 9%

31%

18-29 yrs (n=22)

30-44 yrs (n=75)

45-59 yrs (n=77)

60-74 yrs (n=57)

75 yrs or more (n=9)

Prefer not to answer (n=11)

(n=3)

SECTION 4 Virtual Jury Selection
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 65

Desktop/Laptop (n=217)

Tablet (n=20)

Smart/Cell Phone (n=12)

Did Not Answer (n=2)

2%

31%

67%

Yes (n=78)

No (n=169)

Don’t Know/

Did Not Answer (n=4)

SELECTED TO SIT AS A JUROR

15%

18%

67%

Criminal (n=37)

Civil (n=46)

Don’t Know/

Did Not Answer (n=168)

TYPE OF CASE/TRIAL

5%

87%

8%

EQUIPMENT USED

1%

PROSPECTIVE JURORS - VIRTUAL JURY SELECTION

WHETHER SELECTED TO SIT AS A JUROR, CASE TYPE & EQUIPMENT USED

(n=251)

*Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding

SECTION 4 Virtual Jury Selection
66 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

Attorney Respondents

The characteristics of attorney respondents (who 

were involved in civil matters only) are as follows:

• 30% of attorney respondents were female, 68% 

were male, and 2% preferred not to answer the 

question.

• 3% of were 18-29 years of age, 46% were 30 

– 44 years old, 30% were 45-49 years of age, 

and 18% were 60-74 years of age, 1% were 75 

years or older, and 2% preferred not to answer 

the question.

• A plurality - the largest proportion - of attorney 

respondents had experience doing jury 

selection for more than 20 years (38%).

• A majority (86%) participated in 1-2 virtual 

jury selections during the research period and 

a majority (98%) used a desktop or laptop for 

the virtual jury selection process.

• A plurality of respondents (34%) was involved 

in civil tort, motor vehicle cases followed by the 

next highest, 22% were involved in civil tort, 

non-motor vehicle cases. 

CIVIL ATTORNEYS -

VIRTUAL JURY SELECTION

BY GENDER/GENDER IDENTITY,

 AND AGE

(n=94)

*Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding

30%

68%

Female (n=28)

Male (n=64)

Did not answer (n=2)

GENDER/GENDER IDENTITY

46%

18%

AGE

1%

3%

30%

2%

18-29 yrs (n=22)

30-44 yrs (n=75)

45-59 yrs (n=77)

60-74 yrs (n=57)

75 yrs or more (n=9)

Prefer not to answer (n=11)

SECTION 4 Virtual Jury Selection
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 67

Desktop/Laptop (n=92)

Tablet (n=2)

1%

4%

21%

13%

38%

YEARS DOING

JURY SELECTION

86%

11%

1-2 (n=81)

3-5 (n=10)

6 or more (n=2)

Don’t Know (n=1)

NUMBER OF 

VIRTUAL JURY SELECTIONS

98%

EQUIPMENT

USED

1% 2%

6%

16%

2%

CIVIL ATTORNEYS - VIRTUAL JURY SELECTION

YEARS DOING JURY SELECTION & NUMBER OF VIRTUAL JURY SELECTIONS PARTICIPATED IN

(n=94)

*Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding

1 This was a multiple response question. Respondents were asked to select all that apply

< 1 year (n=4)

1-2 yrs (n=6)

3-5 yrs (n=12)

6-10 yrs (n=20)

11-20 yrs (n=15)

> 20 yrs (n=36)

Don’t Know (n=1)

1%

10%

11%

9%

22%

11%

34%

0% 0%

3%

Contract/Commercial (n=11)

Judgement (n=0)

Property Rights (n=3)

Tort, Asbestos (n=9)

Tort, Medical Malpractice (n=11)

Tort, Motor Vehicle (n=35)

Tort, Non-Motor Vehicle (n=35)

Writ (n=0)

Employment/Worker’s Comp (n=10)

Appeal (n=1)

CIVIL ATTORNEYS -

VIRTUAL JURY SELECTION

TYPE OF CASE(S) 

HANDLED WITH 

VIRTUAL VOIR DIRE

(n=103 responses1)

SECTION 4 Virtual Jury Selection
68 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

Court and Clerk’s Office 

Employee Respondents

The characteristics of court and clerk’s office 

employee respondents were provided in Section 

3: Virtual Court Proceedings. For employees, the 

virtual jury selection questions were embedded 

in the virtual court proceedings survey; they were 

a subset of questions. Of the 182 employees that 

completed the virtual court proceedings survey, 75 

of them completed the set of virtual jury selection 

questions (n=75). Below are the characteristics 

of the employees that completed the virtual jury 

selection questions by position and area of court.

• 45% (or nearly half) of employee respondents 

were bailiffs, 31% were courtroom clerks, 11% 

were other courtroom staff (e.g., court 

reporters, floaters), and 13% were staff who 

provide direct client services.

• 52% of employee respondents indicated they 

work in more than 1 area of the court, 20% were 

from the criminal area, 16% were from the 

family area, and 12% were from the civil area of 

the court.

EMPLOYEES -

VIRTUAL JURY SELECTION

BY POSITION AND AREA 

OF THE COURT

(n=75)

*Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding

45%

13%

BY POSITION

31%

11%

AREA OF COURT

16%

52%

Criminal (n=15)

Civil (n=9)

Family (n=12)

> 1 area (n=39)

12%

20%

SECTION 4 Virtual Jury Selection
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 69

Court and Clerk’s Office 

Employee Respondents

The characteristics of court and clerk’s office 

employee respondents were provided in Section 

3: Virtual Court Proceedings. For employees, the 

virtual jury selection questions were embedded 

in the virtual court proceedings survey; they were 

a subset of questions. Of the 182 employees that 

completed the virtual court proceedings survey, 75 

of them completed the set of virtual jury selection 

questions (n=75). Below are the characteristics 

of the employees that completed the virtual jury 

selection questions by position and area of court.

• 45% (or nearly half) of employee respondents 

were bailiffs, 31% were courtroom clerks, 11% 

were other courtroom staff (e.g., court 

reporters, floaters), and 13% were staff who 

provide direct client services.

• 52% of employee respondents indicated they 

work in more than 1 area of the court, 20% were 

from the criminal area, 16% were from the 

family area, and 12% were from the civil area of 

the court.

Virtual Jury Selection - Evaluation Results,

Findings, and Recommendations.

The detailed results are presented next. Findings 

and recommendations are presented at the end of 

this section. 

Ratings on All Survey Categories

The mean scores on all categories of questions 

across all respondent groups were positive. The 

chart below shows the average ratings of jurors, 

attorneys, and employees on each of the survey 

categories. 

Observations:

Overall, the ratings on each category were 

positive/favorable. All of the mean scores 

for the respondent groups were above 3.5 

(the midpoint of the rating scale). 

All average ratings of prospective juror 

respondents were above 5.0 (on a 6-point 

rating scale).

The average ratings of attorney respondents 

on the “Ease of Use” and “Court/Staff 

Assistance” categories were above 5.0 (on 

a 6-point rating scale). The mean scores on 

the remaining four categories were between 

4.3 and 4.6 (still positive on average, but 

significantly lower than juror respondents.). 

(see chart below)

Employee ratings also were very high. They 

rated the “Access/Convenience/Experience,” 

“Trust,” and “Overall Experience” categories 

5.0 or above. The “Impact on Work/Staff” 

category was rated the lowest.

Juror ratings on all survey categories were 

exceptionally high. Prospective jurors 

rated each survey category significantly 

higher than attorneys, and in some cases 

significantly higher than employees. (see 

chart on the following page for additional 

details)

1

2

3

4

5

SECTION 4 Virtual Jury Selection
70 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

6

5

4

3.5

3

2

1

Access/ 

Convenience/ 

Experience

5.7

Ease of 

Use

5.5

Court/

Staff 

Assistance

5.1

5.5

Environment

5.1

Overall 

Experience/ 

Recommendations

4.3

Jurors (n=251) Attorneys (n=94)

COMPARISON OF JURORS, CIVIL ATTORNEYS, EMPLOYEES: 

VIRTUAL JURY SELECTION - SURVEY CATEGORIES (in mean scores1)

Employees (n=75)

Trust/

Quality

5.5

5

4.3

Impact on 

Work/Staff

1

Means are based on a 6-point agreement rating scale. 3.5 is the midpoint of the rating scale

2Red Star - statistically significant difference between means score of respondents. The difference is not due to change.

4.6

5.3

5.5

5.1

4.4 4.3

5.4

5

Trust

Results on Each Survey Category

The next 8 charts provide the average ratings for 

all questions in the survey categories. Comparisons 

are provided between the average ratings of 

respondent groups – prospective jurors, attorneys, 

and employees, – and on a couple of questions, 

the average ratings of judicial officers. Statistically 

significant differences in mean scores across 

respondent groups also are noted. 

#1 Court Participant Experience – Access, 

Convenience, Safety Observations

Each question in this category was rated favorably 

by all survey respondents. The mean scores on all 

questions are above the mid-point of the rating scale.

Prospective jurors were very favorable about the 

court participant experience. They indicated that 

(1) using video conferencing technology/Zoom 

Jurors rated each survey category significantly higher than attorneys, 

and in some cases, significantly higher than employees (See red stars)

SECTION 4 Virtual Jury Selection
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 71

Attorneys (n=94) Employees (n=75)

#1 COURT PARTICIPANT EXPERIENCE - ACCESS, CONVENIENCE & SAFETY

COMPARISON OF JURORS, ATTORNEYS AND EMPLOYEES (in mean scores1)

1 2 3 3.5 4 5 6

5.5

4.1

5.1

5.1

5.7

4.8

5.7

5.1

The opportunity to use the videoconferencing technology Zoom made it easer 

to participate in jury duty.

The opportunity to use Zoom made it easer 

for prospective jurors to participate in the jury 

selection process.3

Participating in virtual jury selection using 

Zoom was convenient. It saved time and 

money (eg. commute time, cost of public 

transportation, parking.)

Offering virtual jury selection as an option to 

in-person selection is an effective way to keep 

jurors/all participants healthy and safe.

1

Means are based on a 6-point agreement rating scale. 3.5 is the midpoint of the rating scale

2Red Star - statistically significant difference between means score of respondents. The difference is not due to change. 

3This question was asked of attorneys and employees only.

5.4

Jurors (n=251)

made it easier to participate in jury duty, (2) using 

Zoom was very convenient – it saved time and 

money, and (3) offering virtual jury selection as an 

option to in-person selection was an effective way 

to keep jurors/all participants healthy and safe. 

95% of prospective juror respondents 

and 66% of attorney respondents said 

using Zoom was convenient; it saved 

time and money.

Attorneys who handled civil matters and 

employees “agreed” that the opportunity to 

use Zoom made it easier for prospective jurors 

to participate in the jury selection process and 

concurred with prospective jurors that virtual jury 

SECTION 4 Virtual Jury Selection
72 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

Statistically Significant Differences in 

Mean Scores

#1 Court Participant Experience - Virtual Jury Selection 

Civil attorney respondents with less than 6 years of 

experience rated the Court Participant Experience survey 

category, which measured access, convenience, and safety, 

significantly higher than attorney respondents with more 

than 20 years of experience. 

Civil attorney respondents with less than 6 years of 

experience rated the following questions significantly higher 

than those with more than 20 years of experience.

“The opportunity to use video conferencing/Zoom made it 

easier to participate in the jury selection process.“

“Participating in virtual jury selection using Zoom was 

convenient. It saved me and/or my client time and money.”

Below are the statistically significant differences in mean 

scores by respondent groups on this question: “Offering 

virtual jury selection as an option to in-person selection is 

an effective way to keep jurors/all participants healthy and 

safe.”

Jurors rated this question significantly higher than attorneys 

and employees. 

Female jurors rated this question significantly higher than 

male juror respondents. 

Civil attorney respondents 18-44 years of age rated this 

question significantly higher than attorney respondents 60 

years or older.

Civil attorney respondents with 6-20 years of experience 

gave significantly higher ratings that those with more than 

20 years of experience.

selection was an effective way to 

keep jurors/all court participants 

healthy and safe.

78% of attorney and 

76% of employee 

respondents agreed that 

the opportunity to use 

Zoom made it easier for 

prospective jurors to 

participate in the jury 

selection process.

Attorneys “agreed somewhat” 

that the opportunity to use Zoom 

made it easier to participate in 

virtual jury selection. This was 

attorneys’ lowest rated question 

in this survey category. 

89% of prospective juror 

respondents and 47% 

of attorney respondents 

said using Zoom made 

it easier to participate in 

jury duty. 

The ratings of prospective jurors 

were significantly higher than the 

ratings given by attorneys. 

Statistically significant differences 

in the mean scores of survey 

respondents are presented in the 

shaded table below. 

SECTION 4 Virtual Jury Selection
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 73

Attorneys (n=94)

#2 EASE OF USE

COMPARISON OF JURORS AND ATTORNEYS (in mean scores1)

1 2 3 3.5 4 5 6

5.5

4.8

5.6

5.2

The instructions for using Zoom for virtual jury 

selection were easy to understand.

It was easy to join the virtual jury 

proceeding using Zoom.

It was easy to us Zoom once I logged in.

1

Means are based on a 6-point agreement rating scale. 3.5 is the midpoint of the rating scale

2Red Star - statistically significant difference between means score of respondents. The difference is not due to change. 

Jurors (n=251)

5.6

5.2

#2 Ease of Use Observations

Both prospective jurors and attorneys were very 

positive about ease of use. All questions were rated 

highly; all are above the mid-point of the rating scale.

Both respondent groups agreed or strongly agreed 

that (1) instructions for using Zoom for virtual jury 

selection were easy to understand, (2) it was easy to 

join the virtual jury proceeding using Zoom, and (3) it 

was easy to use once logged in.

92% of juror respondents and 85% 

of attorney respondents agreed that 

it was easy to join the virtual jury 

proceeding using Zoom.

Prospective juror ratings on these questions were 

significantly higher than attorneys.

92% of jurors and 81% of attorneys 

agreed it was easy to use Zoom once 

logged in.

There were no additional significant differences to 

report on in this set of questions. 

#3 Court Assistance Observations

Prospective jurors and attorney respondents rated 

court assistance very positively. Both respondent 

groups agreed / strongly agreed that (1) court 

staff were available to assist if they encountered 

problems using Zoom and (2) they received 

assistance they needed to participate in the virtual 

jury selection process. 

Prospective jurors rated both areas significantly 

higher than attorneys.

SECTION 4 Virtual Jury Selection
74 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

There were no additional statistically significant differences to report on in this set of questions.

Attorneys (n=94)

#3 COURT ASSISTANCE

COMPARISON OF JURORS AND ATTORNEYS (in mean scores1)

1 2 3 3.5 4 5 6

5.4

5.1

5.5

5.1

Court staff were available to assist if I 

encountered problems using Zoom.

I received the assistance I needed to 

participate in the virtual jury selection process.

1

Means are based on a 6-point agreement rating scale. 3.5 is the midpoint of the rating scale

2Red Star - statistically significant difference between means score of respondents. The difference is not due to change. 

Jurors (n=251)

#4 Environment Observations

The questions in this category were asked only of 

prospective jurors because the questions pertained 

to jurors’ environment. Juror respondents agreed 

that they (1) had a quiet place from which to 

participate in the virtual jury selection process and 

(2) were able to focus on the virtual jury selection 

proceeding without distractions.

#4 ENVIRONMENT

JURORS ONLY (in mean scores1)

1 2 3 3.5 4 5 6

5.4

5.5 I had a quiet place from which to participate 

in the virtual jury selection process.

I was able to focus on the virtual jury selection 

proceeding without distractions.

1

Means are based on a 6-point agreement rating scale. 3.5 is the midpoint of the rating scale

Jurors (n=251)

SECTION 4 Virtual Jury Selection
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 75

Attorneys (n=94)

#5 TIMELY/EFFECTIVE

COMPARISON OF JURORS AND ATTORNEYS (in mean scores1)

1 2 3 3.5 4 5 6

5.2

4.4

5.1

4.4

The time it took to complete the virtual jury 

selection process was reasonable

The virtual jury selection process was efficient; 

my time was well used.

The virtual jury selection process was 

effective, I had the information I needed to 

empanel a jury on my case.3

1

Means are based on a 6-point agreement rating scale. 3.5 is the midpoint of the rating scale

2Red Star - statistically significant difference between means score of respondents. The difference is not due to change. 

3This question was asked of attorneys only.

Jurors (n=251)

4.2

#5 Timely/Effective Observations

Prospective jurors “agreed” with the two questions 

asked of them in this survey category, and attorneys 

“agreed somewhat” with the three questions asked 

of them, which were:

The time it took to complete the virtual jury selection 

process was reasonable.

The virtual jury selection process was efficient; my 

time was used well.

Attorneys only: The virtual jury selection process was 

effective; I had the information I needed to empanel 

a jury on my case.

Juror respondents gave significantly higher ratings 

on this set of questions than attorneys.

There were no additional significant differences to 

report on in this set of questions.

Of the 2 similar questions, 

jurors rated both significantly 

higher than attorneys (See 

red stars)

SECTION 4 Virtual Jury Selection
76 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

#6 Trust and Confidence Observations

All respondents rated this survey category 

positively; all mean scores are above the mid-point 

of the rating scale. 

Juror and employee respondents “agreed”, and 

attorney respondents “agreed somewhat”, with the 

following statements. 

Virtual jury selection is an acceptable method for 

selecting a jury.

If I were a participant in a legal matter, I would 

trust the virtual jury selection process. / I trust the 

virtual jury selection process. If it is an option in the 

future, I will recommend it to my clients.

All survey respondents trust virtual jury selection 

although jurors trust it the most. The average 

ratings of jurors were significantly higher than the 

average ratings of attorneys.

See the shaded table for additional significant 

differences in the mean scores of survey 

respondents.

#7 Overall Experience/Future 

Recommendations Observations

The one question included in this survey category 

was viewed positively overall; the mean scores are 

on the agreement side of the rating scale (rather 

than on the disagreement side of the scale). 

Attorneys (n=94)

#6 TRUST AND CONFIDENCE

COMPARISON OF JURORS, ATTORNEYS, AND EMPLOYEES (in mean scores1)

1 2 3 3.5 4 5 6

5.5

4.3

5.2

4.0

In my opinion, virtual jury selection is an 

acceptable method for selecting a jury. / Giving 

prospective jurors the option to participate in 

virtual jury selection is an acceptable method 

for selecting a jury.

If I were a participant in a legal matter, I would 

trust the virtual jury selection process. / I trust 

the virtual jury selection process. If it is an option 

in the future, I will recommend it to my clients.

1

Means are based on a 6-point agreement rating scale. 3.5 is the midpoint of the rating scale

2Red Star - statistically significant difference between means score of respondents. The difference is not due to change. 

Jurors (n=251)

5.1

4.8

Employees (n=75)

SECTION 4 Virtual Jury Selection
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 77

Below are the respondent groups with 

significantly different average ratings to the 

following questions: Asked of Jurors: In my 

opinion, virtual jury selection is an acceptable 

/ effective method for selecting a jury. / 

Asked of attorneys and employees: Giving 

prospective jurors the option to participate 

in virtual jury selection is an acceptable / 

effective method for selecting a jury.

- Jurors rated the question significantly 

higher than attorneys and employees. 

- Employees gave significantly higher

ratings than attorneys. 

- Female jurors rated this question significantly 

higher than male juror respondents. 

- Civil attorney respondents with less than 

6 years of experience rated the question 

significantly higher than those with more 

than 20 years of experience.

B o t h j u r o r s a n d e m p l o y e e s g a v e 

significantly higher mean scores than 

attorneys on this question. Female jurors 

rated it significantly higher than male juror 

respondents. 

- Asked of jurors and employees: If I were 

a participant in a legal matter, I would trust 

the virtual jury selection process. Asked of 

attorneys: I trust the virtual jury selection 

process. If it is an option in the future, I will 

recommend it to my clients. 

Statistically Significant Differences in Mean Scores

#6 Trust and Confidence - Virtual Jury Selection 

All respondent groups recommended the Court 

continue providing the option to participate in jury 

selection using Zoom, although attorneys rated it 

the lowest. Jurors and employees “agreed,” and 

attorney respondents “agreed somewhat,” with the 

statement:

“Given my overall experience, I recommend the Court 

continue providing the option to participate in the 

jury selection process using Zoom.”

Juror respondents rated this question significantly 

higher than employees and attorneys handling civil 

matters, and employees rated it significantly higher 

than attorneys. 

Juror respondents gave significantly 

higher ratings on the virtual jury selection 

process than attorneys. Prospective 

jurors believe it is convenient, easy to use, 

and effective. 78% indicated they would 

trust the virtual jury selection process if 

they were a participant in a legal matter. 

Overwhelmingly, 86% recommended the 

Court continue providing this option in 

the future (compared to 60% of attorney 

respondents). 

See the shaded table on the following page for 

additional significant differences in the mean 

scores of survey respondents.

SECTION 4 Virtual Jury Selection
78 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

Attorneys (n=94)

#7 OVERALL EXPERIENCE/FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS

COMPARISON OF JURORS, ATTORNEYS, AND EMPLOYEES (in mean scores1)

1 2 3 3.5 4 5 6

5.4

4.3

Given my overall experience, I recommend 

that the Court continue providing the 

option to participate in the jury selection 

process using Zoom.

1

Means are based on a 6-point agreement rating scale. 3.5 is the midpoint of the rating scale

2Red Star - statistically significant difference between means score of respondents. The difference is not due to change. 

Jurors (n=251)

5.0

Employees (n=75)

Jurors rated this 

question significantly 

higher than 

employees and 

civil attorneys, and 

employees rated it 

significantly higher 

than attorneys. 

(See red star.)

Statistically Significant Differences in 

Mean Scores

#7 Overall Experience/Future Recommendations

The statistically significant differences in mean scores 

provided by respondent groups on this question are listed 

below: Given my overall experience, I recommend that the 

Court continue providing the option to participate in the 

jury selection process using Zoom.

• Jurors gave a significantly higher mean score than 

attorneys and employees to this question.

• Employees rated this question significantly higher 

than attorneys. 

• Female jurors rated this question significantly higher than 

male attorneys.

• Civil attorney respondents with less than 6 years of 

experience rated the question significantly higher than 

those with more than 20 years of experience.

Bailiffs gave significantly 

lower ratings to each 

question than courtroom 

clerks and staff with direct 

client contact.

SECTION 4 Virtual Jury Selection
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 79

Employees (n=75)

#8 IMPACT ON WORK/STAFF

EMPLOYEES ONLY (in mean scores1)

1 2 3 3.5 4 5 6

4.0

5.2

4.6

3.4

4.7

The training materials that were available to 

court employees were sufficient for learning 

how to conduct virtual jury selection.

I feel competent to host, assist with, and/or 

participate in virtual jury selection.

My assignment area/department handled 

virtual jury selection similarly; we all used 

consistent procedures, protocols, 

and/or practices.

While how I do my work has changed 

significantly with virtual jury selection, my 

workload overall has stayed about the same.

It takes about the same amount of time to do 

my work now with virtual jury selection as it 

did when the Court conducted in-person 

jury selection.

Over time, I found effective ways to manage 

my work even with the new technologies, 

processes, and pressures caused by the 

many changes. 

If permitted, I am (or would be) able to do 

ALL aspects of my job related to virtual jury 

selection while working remotely.

1

Means are based on a 6-point agreement rating scale. 3.5 is the midpoint of the rating scale

2Red Star - statistically significant difference between means score of respondents. The difference is not due to change. 

4.4

3.8

SECTION 4 Virtual Jury Selection
80 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

#8 Impact on Work/Staff 

Observations

All but one of the questions included 

in this survey category had overall 

mean ratings above the mid-point 

of the rating scale. However, there 

is considerable variability on each 

question and there are statistically 

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f fe re n ce s a m o n g 

employee groups. (see below for 

details)

The highest rated question for employees 

was their level of competence hosting 

and participating in virtual jury selection. 

80% of employees said 

they were competent to 

host, assist with, and/or 

participate in virtual jury 

selection. Only 7% did not 

feel competent. 

Employees gave the lowest average 

ratings to these two questions: (1) It 

takes me about the same amount of 

time to do my work now with video 

court proceedings as it did when the 

Court conducted in-person hearings 

and (2) While how I do my work has 

changed significantly with video court 

proceedings, my workload overall has 

stayed the same. 

See the shaded table to the left for 

additional significant differences in the 

mean scores of survey respondents.

Statistically Significant Differences in 

Mean Scores

#8 Impact on Work/Staff - By Area of the Court

Criminal area employee respondents gave a 

significantly lower rating to the following question 

than employees that work in the family area and 

more than one area.

Over time, I found effective ways to manage my 

work even with the new technologies, processes, and 

pressures caused by the many changes.

#8 Impact on Work/Staff - By Position

Similar to video court proceedings, bailiff 

respondents gave significantly lower ratings to this 

entire set of questions than courtroom clerks and 

staff who provide direct client services. 

The questions rated the lowest by bailiff 

respondents were:

It takes about the same amount of time to do my 

work now with virtual jury selection as it did when 

the Court conducted in-person jury selection

While how I do my work has changed significantly 

with virtual jury selection, my workload overall has 

stayed about the same.

The training materials that were available to court 

employees were sufficient for learning how to 

conduct virtual jury selection.

SECTION 4 Virtual Jury Selection
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 81

Overall Satisfaction with 

Virtual Jury Selection

Prospective juror and employee respondents 

strongly endorsed the use of virtual jury selection; 

they gave very high satisfaction ratings. Jurors’ 

ratings were the highest. Many jurors and 

employees are likely to recommend virtual jury 

selection to others, if continued by the Court.

Prospective juror respondents and 

employees highly endorsed the virtual 

jury selection process; they gave very 

high satisfaction ratings. Attorney 

respondents did not overwhelmingly 

endorse virtual jury selection. While 

still positive, their satisfaction ratings 

were considerably lower than the 

ratings of jurors and employees. 

Attorney respondents did not overwhelmingly 

endorse virtual jury selection. While still positive, 

their overall satisfaction ratings were lower than 

the ratings of jurors and employees. The ratings 

of attorneys were bimodal: an equal number of 

attorneys strongly endorsed virtual jury selection 

while the other group did not endorse virtual jury 

selection. Additionally, there were differences 

among attorney groups: (1) attorneys between 18 

– 44 years of age gave significantly higher ratings 

than attorney respondents 60 years or older and 

(2) attorneys that had practiced less than 6 years 

gave significantly higher ratings than attorney 

respondents with more than 20 years of experience. 

NARRATIVE COMMENTS

PROSPECTIVE JUROR RESPONDENTS 

Positive Experience of Prospective Jurors

1. The experience was very positive. It was 

easy to use, convenient, and safe. No 

driving or parking issues. It also supports 

going “green.”

2. It was very efficient; it saved time. It 

was much less stressful than appearing 

in-person.

3. The process was polished and 

professional; it was a lot easier and 

convenient than appearing in person. 

4. It cut down on the amount of time off work.

5. Going downtown is too dangerous. This 

was a safe alternative. 

6. The jury selection process is ideal for 

Zoom. The selection and jury process 

went very smoothly via Zoom.

7. This was an outstanding option; it should 

be continued in the future. This should 

be normal procedure.

8. I highly encourage the Court to 

continue this process post pandemic; it is 

safer, more convenient,and saves 

commute/transportation time.

9. Please continue to use it; make it an 

option post-pandemic. 

10. Overall, a great process; very important 

for public health/safety now. It will be more 

convenient and efficient post pandemic.

According to juror respondents, the benefits to virtual jury selection were: 

convenience, increased safety, required less time off work, more efficient, easy 

to navigate, and saved time and money. Concerns included: the possibility of 

underrepresentation, bias, and lack of privacy. 

SECTION 4 Virtual Jury Selection
82 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

Concerns and/or Suggestions for Improvement

1. Communication to prospective jurors 

was not very good. Dates/times were 

changed without much notice. 

Prospective jurors were not advised 

what to expect or how much time it 

would take. The lack of information 

made it difficult to plan. Information 

about the process, schedule, time 

commitment was insufficient. 

2. We waited a long time without updates/

new information. 

3. The process needs to be improved. The 

process was confusing. 

4. I believe the final jury selection should 

be done in person (once down to a 

reasonable number of people). 

5. Some people had technical issues/

problems. Many people struggled. They 

need more assistance. Delays were 

caused because of technical issues 

(e.g., people did not know how to mute 

themselves; there was background 

noise/people were talking).

6. Technology issues slowed down the 

process. 

7. The process took longer than we were 

initially told. 

8. I have concerns about privacy. 

Confidentiality is a concern. There 

was no privacy in answering questions 

of attorneys (e.g., past DUI, conflict of 

interest, etc.)

9. Virtual is not as effective as in-person. 

Context is important; context is more 

evident when in-person.

10. I worry a jury selected virtually will have 

a bias toward younger and more 

technically savvy people. Some people 

may be underrepresented on juries if 

virtual is the only way to participate 

(e.g., people who do not have Internet 

access, don’t know how to use a 

computer/mobile device, people with 

disabilities – physical or hearing, etc.).

11. There need to be alternative options 

for people who do not have Internet or 

computer/ mobile devices, or don’t know 

how to participate virtually.

12. There may be disadvantages to the 

parties involved in a trial. The human 

element is missing when this process is 

virtual. 

NARRATIVE COMMENTS

PROSPECTIVE JUROR RESPONDENTS 

SECTION 4 Virtual Jury Selection
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 83

NARRATIVE COMMENTS

ATTORNEY RESPONDENTS 

Positive Experience of Attorneys

1. The virtual voir dire process worked smoothly. 

It was a great process. Potential jurors 

seemed more comfortable in their own 

homes and seemed more forthcoming with 

their opinions and biases. I highly recommend 

this format for future use.

2. Getting information from the Court several 

days in advance made the virtual process 

more efficient.

3. Virtual jury selection is far cheaper, easier, and 

more convenient for all. However, reading 

people is easier in person.

4. The process worked well with smaller panels 

and the judge allowed more time.

5. Zoom jury trials should be used going 

forward. It is a way to ensure access to timely 

justice. 

6. Virtual jury selection enables individuals to 

participate in jury service who would 

otherwise be unable to go to the courthouse.

7. I prefer Zoom jury selection over in-person, 

however, the panel was less diverse than when 

selecting in-person. This should be examined 

in the future.

8. My experience is that the jury panels were 

more diverse and engaged, and the surveys 

gave us more information to make informed 

decision about who to keep/not keep.

9. Zoom should be the default jury selection 

method moving forward. It was more 

convenient for jurors (they did not need to 

travel to Kent or Seattle) and we saw a 

diverse cross-section of jurors that we rarely 

see when selecting in-person.

10. Jurors were engaged; they seemed more 

relaxed and open. I liked being able to 

observe jurors’ responses to jury selection. 

Concerns & Recommendations for Improvement

1. Virtual jury selection should not be required. 

It is difficult to examine/read body language 

and individual reactions when done virtually. 

Assessing a juror’s demeanor is not possible 

unless in-person. Making an informed 

decision is difficult when not in person. 

Seeing prospective jurors in-person is vital 

to the process of a jury trial. It should not be 

replaced by Zoom.

2. During COVID, virtual jury selection should 

be used to keep access to justice moving. 

Post-COVID, I do not endorse it. In-person is 

preferred over virtual when not in a pandemic.

3. Virtual jury selection took a long time 

(e.g., 2.5 days, 1 week); it was a waste of 

time. The process was unwieldy, 

unorganized, and inefficient. Too much time 

was allowed by the judge. The process was 

prolonged, which delayed the start of 

the trial. 

4. Some jurors did not pay attention or were 

distracted.

5. The energy in the room is lost when 

selecting a juror virtually.

6. Some prospective jurors were technically 

challenged. They were struck automatically 

by the judge. Virtual jury selection is not an 

acceptable replacement for in-person 

voir dire. People should not be disqualified 

from jury service because they do not have 

access to / know how to use technology. 

7. Virtual jury selection disallows/prevents 

older jurors, poorer jurors, those without 

the technology from participating. This is

unacceptable.

SECTION 4 Virtual Jury Selection
84 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

More Concerns & Recommendations for Improvement

8. In-person voir dire cannot be replicated via Zoom. It 

can be done, but it is not the same; it is not as effective. 

Potential jurors were not willing to open up and freely 

share their thoughts/ opinions. I do not believe in virtual 

jury selection. 

9. The giant Excel spreadsheet containing responses to the 

long questionnaire was too large and unwieldy. A 

different system is needed.

10. Zoom is fine during a pandemic, but it will never be as 

good as in-person.

11. Virtual jury selection may be efficient, but it is not 

effective. It should continue to be done in person.

12. Jury selection can be done virtually, but once selected, 

the trial should be in-person.

13. If virtual jury selection is continued post-COVID, the 

Court must make it more efficient (e.g., avoid starts and 

stops, rescheduling, improve communication, etc.)

14. I suggest the Court have an IT/technical person run 

Zoom, not the bailiff or clerk. This person could be 

funded by the parties or an officer of the court (like a 

private court reporter). Technical/logistical issues could 

be avoided with this arrangement.

NARRATIVE COMMENTS

EMPLOYEE RESPONDENTS 

Positive Experience of Court & 

Clerk’s Office Employees

1. Virtual jury selection is 

working well. The feedback 

received from jurors is 

overwhelmingly positive. 

2. Virtual jury selection allows 

prospective jurors to 

participate in the jury 

selection process without 

incurring added costs, time, 

and/or the hassle of 

commuting to the courthouse. 

It also keeps them safe. 

Downtown Seattle is not safe; 

it is dangerous and out of 

control.

3. More people will likely 

participate in jury service if 

they do not have to travel, 

park, etc. in order to appear.

4. Virtual jury selection is much 

more convenient for jurors; it 

is a sufficient option. 

5. Virtual jury selection is 

a great option for potential 

jurors. It seems we have 

higher participation rates and 

more diverse pools than when 

in-person. 

According to about one-half of attorney 

respondents, virtual jury selection was effective, 

efficient, convenient, and should be continued 

post-pandemic. The other half said the 

opposite: virtual jury selection was too timeconsuming, inefficient, ineffective, unfair, and 

should not be continued post-pandemic.

SECTION 4 Virtual Jury Selection
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 85

Favorable Ratings. 

Overall, the virtual jury selection process was 

viewed positively by a large proportion of 

prospective jurors, attorneys, and employee 

respondents. Juror respondents gave the highest 

ratings, followed by employees. 

Satisfaction Levels – Jurors and Employees. 

Prospective juror respondents and employees 

highly endorsed virtual jury selection; they 

gave high satisfaction ratings. 

Benefits of Virtual Jury Selection, per Jurors. 

The benefits of virtual jury selection according 

to juror respondents included: convenience, 

safety (health and physical), less time off from 

work, efficiency, easy to navigate, and time and 

money savings.

Primary Concerns and Recommendations, 

per Jurors. 

The primary concerns of virtual jury selection 

according to prospective juror respondents 

included: the possibility of underrepresentation, 

bias, and lack of privacy when selecting a jury 

virtually. Recommendations for improvement 

included: communicate better with prospective 

jurors, resolve the technical issues, and improve/

streamline the process.

Female Jurors.

Female jurors gave significantly higher ratings 

on many of the questions than male jurors. 

6Additional tasks associated with virtual jury selection included: 

hosting, managing, scheduling, contacting and corresponding 

with jurors; updating the jury staff on all aspects of virtual juror 

attendance; providing information and troubleshooting for 

counsel and court staff on Zoom/new courtroom technology; 

sending and compiling questionnaire results; converting and 

filing the questionnaire results. All of the above could be 

done remotely but two monitors would be optimal. Another 

respondent described the increased work for bailiffs as: 

preparing questionnaires, responding to emails, providing tech 

support, preparing information for attorneys, etc.

Concerns and Recommendations for 

Improvement

1. Remote jury selection takes longer and 

has increased the workload of bailiffs. 

Juror questionnaires, gathering 

responses, handling juror inquiries via 

email, scheduling panels, etc. were not 

previously the responsibilities of bailiffs. 

Bailiffs are not able to handle other work 

during the day because of additional 

duties – monitoring the screens and 

managing the process.6

2. Virtual jury selection is much more 

difficult than the in-person process. 

3. Jury processes vary greatly across 

courts. It is not feasible to have bailiffs 

cover for each other because we all do it 

differently.

4. Judges handle jurors falling off 

differently. There is no consistency 

on how to handle aspects of virtual jury 

selection. 

5. Virtual voir dire is good for jurors but not 

fair for the defendant. Counsel needs to 

be able to view body language.

6. Virtual jury selection is not equivalent or 

superior to being in-person, even though 

it is a sufficient option.

7. Some jurors struggled navigating Zoom. 

EVALUATION FINDINGS

Our findings and recommendations relating to virtual 

jury selection are next.

SECTION 4 Virtual Jury Selection
86 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

Satisfaction Levels – Attorneys. 

While positive overall, attorneys 

were less satisfied than the other 

respondents. An equal number of 

attorneys gave high satisfaction 

as gave low satisfaction ratings. 

Additionally, civil attorneys were 

divided on their experiences with and 

recommendations about the future of 

virtual jury selection. One-half of the 

narrative comments from attorneys 

made positive comments: virtual jury 

selection was effective, efficient, more 

convenient, and should be continued 

post pandemic. The other half said 

virtual jury selection was too time 

consuming, inefficient, ineffective, 

unfair, and should not be continued 

post-pandemic. They preferred inperson jury selection over virtual.

Years of Experience –Attorneys. 

Attorney respondents with less than 6 

years of experience gave significantly 

higher ratings on many of the 

questions than attorneys with more 

than 20 years of experience. 

Workload of Bailiffs. 

The virtual jury selection process 

significantly affected the work and 

workloads of bailiffs. They acquired 

additional responsibilities with the 

virtual voir dire process. Bailiffs gave 

significantly lower ratings to this set 

of questions than did courtroom 

clerks and staff who provide direct 

client services and who do not have 

responsibilities related to jury selection.

RECOMMENDATIONS: 

Continue Offering Virtual Jury Selection as an Option.

Continue offering virtual voir dire as an option for all cases 

based on the positive ratings and significant benefits 

documented in this study. Continue to improve the virtual 

jury selection process to address the concerns raised by 

study participants. NOTE: There is a rule pending before 

the Washington State Supreme Court. Whether KCSC can 

continue virtual jury selection depends on whether the 

Supreme Court adopts the rule permitting it to continue. 

Develop Standardized Procedures. 

Develop and implement consistent practices and 

procedures; implement across all areas of the Court. 

Continue Training in Collaboration with Bar Associations. 

Continue educating attorneys/ others on the virtual jury 

selection process, in collaboration with Bar Associations. Focus 

efforts on increasing the competence and comfort levels of all 

attorneys, and especially attorneys who have been practicing 

for more than 11 years.

Share Findings; Promote Change in the Court System. 

Share the results of this study widely both internally and with 

the broader legal and justice system community. All need 

to know that the virtual jury selection process was viewed 

positively overall, and an overwhelming number of study 

respondents recommended that it be continued in the future. 

Continue to Evaluate and Recalibrate Jobs and Workloads.

Evaluate the complete virtual voir dire process. Analyze 

the new job duties and responsibilities, the workloads, 

and the division of labor of all courtroom staff (i.e., bailiffs, 

courtroom clerks, others). Update job descriptions of 

bailiffs and others to reflect current job responsibilities 

and requisite skills to conduct the work. Re-balance and/

or realign duties and workloads as needed. Evaluate 

the need to recalibrate pay consistent with new duties, 

responsibilities, and requisite skills.

1

2

3

4

5

SECTION 4 Virtual Jury Selection
SECTION 5:

Remote Work

87
88 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

SECTION 5 Remote Work

Remote work in the administrative divisions of the 

King County Superior Court (KCSC) was the final area 

evaluated as part of the State Justice Institute (SJI) 

Pandemic grant. This section includes the findings from 

the evaluation, which focused on how remote work 

affected (a) customer service (internal and external), 

(b) the work of employees in the administrative 

divisions, (c) productivity and job performance, and (d) 

team members and other employees across the Court 

(e.g., collaboration, workload).

The following areas of the Court were included in, and 

will be affected by, the evaluation of remote work:

• Court Administration (executive office and staff)

• Infrastructure Services 

(Superior Court IT, HR, Fiscal, Facilities)

• Court Operations (jury services, interpreter 

services etc.)

• Family Court Services

• Juvenile Services.

Judicial and courtroom staff (i.e., bailiffs, courtroom 

clerks, floaters, etc.) will not be affected by the remote 

work evaluation findings. The Court has implemented a 

policy requiring courtroom staff to be in-person for all 

court proceedings.

This section of the report is organized as follows: 

How remote work was handled in the 

Administrative Divisions of the Court.

Methodology.

Remote Work – Detailed Summary of Evaluation, 

Findings, and Recommendations.

How Remote Work 

was handled in 

the Administrative 

Divisions of the Court

The Court’s leadership team – Chief 

Judges and Directors – chose remote 

work as a third area to study for this 

evaluation because it was viewed as 

a promising practice. Pre-pandemic, 

remote was not permitted per policy 

except in rare instances (e.g., medical 

reasons). When the pandemic hit, 

the administrative areas of the court 

pivoted nearly overnight to remote 

work. Thanks to the tireless efforts of 

the administrative leadership team 

(comprised of the chief administrative 

officers, directors, and managers), 

innovative procedures and practices 

were developed and implemented. 

Remote work proved possible, and in 

many instances effective throughout 

the pandemic.

As a promising future practice, remote 

work was chosen because it aligned 

with the Court’s core value of access, 

service to the public, innovation, and 

safety. It also aligned with the Court’s 

vision of the future, one element of 

which is to create an ideal, satisfying, 

and engaging place to work.

The administrative and operational 

divisions of the Court began providing 

virtual services and working remotely 

in March 2020, similar to the changes 

that occurred in judicial and courtroom 

1

2

3
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 89

SECTION 5 Remote Work

areas (as described above). Each division and the 

many court programs and client services (juvenile 

services, family court services, court administration 

and operations, civil and criminal department 

support) developed new procedures and methods 

for providing remote services to court users, 

working remotely, and providing internal service 

and support to the workforce (e.g., IT, fiscal, HR, 

etc.).

The Superior Court IT Department was instrumental 

in making remote work possible. The Department 

provided the requisite technology and equipment to 

employees and IT staff supported the workforce in 

this transition. The Court had recently begun moving 

to replacing PCs with laptops for greater mobility, but 

at the time of the pandemic had not fully transitioned. 

The court did not close to the public because of 

the COVID pandemic, but adjusted operations to 

accommodate local public health social distancing 

guidelines and safety concerns. Remote work 

included, but was not limited to: virtual client 

meetings, groups, seminars, and classes; staff/

program meetings, supervisor and employee 

meetings, team retreats, and trainings; interviews, 

new hire orientations/on-boarding, and employee 

reviews; community presentations, engagements, 

celebrations, and programs; stakeholder, community 

partner, and interagency gatherings.

An informal, hybrid work arrangement evolved 

throughout 2020 and 2021, and continues in 2022. 

With management oversight, these arrangements 

have allowed many employees to continue to work 

at a court location (onsite) some of the time and 

from home (remote) other times. Considerations 

for continuing to allow remote work included: 

• The nature of the work (of each employee/work

 team).

• The needs of clients/court users.

• The needs of the division and/or work teams. 

The findings and recommendations from this 

evaluation will assist the Chief Administrative 

Officer and Directors in making decisions about, 

and recommendations for, the future of work at 

the Court. They will help the Court’s administrative 

leadership team with information to develop an 

optimal work arrangement for areas of the Court 

that will uphold high standards and expectations 

for all employees. In short, the findings will help 

ensure future remote work practices will:

• Maintain the highest quality of services to 

court users.

• Maintain high levels of productivity.

• Ensure accountability for performance.

• Promote collaboration and camaraderie within 

and across teams and divisions.

• Provide consistency and equity in practices and 

procedures across administrative divisions/

areas.

Methodology

The starting premises for studying remote work 

and considering optimal work arrangements post 

pandemic were:

• Remote work allowed the Court to continue 

operating during the pandemic, without which 

the court would have shut down for periods of

time during the past 24 plus months. Although 
90 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

not perfect (e.g., it appears remote work worked 

more effectively in some units/areas of the court 

than in other areas), pivoting to remote work 

allowed the Court to continue to serve court users 

and remain open and operate throughout the 

pandemic. 

• It is important to understand the unintended 

effects on others – customers, co-workers, and 

stakeholders – when considering, 

recommending, and/or adopting a hybrid work 

arrangement for the administrative divisions/

areas of the Court. Understanding the effects 

on others will help the Court make decisions

 about the future of work in the absence of a

pandemic and for reasons other than health 

and safety.

• The Court’s Administrative Leadership is 

interested in developing, recommending, and 

adopting an optimal hybrid work arrangement–

a combination of onsite and remote work – for 

the Court’s administrative divisions in the future

post pandemic. 

• A hybrid work arrangement, if implemented post

pandemic, will need to be added by reference 

to the Administrative Guidelines. It ideally will 

apply to as many work units/functions 

as possible. It is intended to be the default 

arrangement; it is to be inclusive (rather than 

exclusive). 

• All work arrangements – whether onsite 

or remote – will not compromise service or 

performance. That is, all work arrangements 

will require the highest quality of services 

to court users and high levels of productivity 

and accountability of all employees. If adopted 

post pandemic, remote work, or a hybrid work 

arrangement, is a management option that can 

be terminated or altered at any time at the sole 

discretion of the Court. Remote work is not a right 

or a benefit of employment and is not a perk to 

be afforded to employees solely for convenience, 

flexibility, high morale, etc.

Three methods were used to study the impact of 

remote work. The Court’s administrative leadership 

team, comprised of 55 directors, managers, and 

supervisors from across the Court, were involved 

extensively in the first two methods described 

next. A sampling of other staff (e.g., who provide 

direct client and other services) were involved in 

the third method, which is describe below. 

METHOD 1: LEADERSHIP TEAM MEETING

A virtual leadership team meeting was held in 

early November 2021. All directors, managers, and 

supervisors participated in the meeting, which was 

devoted to the evaluation of remote work (N=55). 

Attendees discussed and provided responses to 

the following questions:

Under what circumstances will working remotely 

work best in the future (post pandemic)?

Under what circumstances will remote work 

not work very well (or at all) in the future (post 

pandemic)?

In addition to the breakout group discussions, 

anonymous, individual responses were gathered 

from attendees to the following questions using 

a remote polling tool (i.e., Poll Everywhere – 

www.PollEv.com/praxis):

SECTION 5 Remote Work
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 91

Benefits: 

What are the benefits to implementing a hybrid work 

arrangement post pandemic (list your top three)?

Drawbacks: 

What are the drawbacks to implementing a hybrid 

work arrangement post pandemic (list your top 3)?

Future Opportunities:

What opportunities do you foresee for the Court by 

having a hybrid work arrangement post pandemic 

(list your top 3)?

Concerns: 

What concerns do you have about a hybrid work 

arrangement post pandemic (list up to 3)?

Success: 

What is needed to make a hybrid work arrangement 

successful post pandemic?

Additional Comments/Suggestions?

METHOD 2: DIVISIONAL/UNIT ANALYSIS

Directors of the Court’s administrative divisions 

were asked to do a deeper analysis of the effects 

of remote work on their respective divisions/areas 

of the Court. Managers, supervisors, and in some 

instances, employees, were involved in this analysis. 

Each administrative division of the Court submitted 

written responses to the following questions. The 

responses were presumably based on their firsthand experiences and observations.

What has been the impact of remote work on:

• Level of customer service 

(internal and external).

• Quantity and quality of work/productivity.

• Employees/work teams (e.g., team members, 

team dynamics/relationships; collaboration and 

communication within units/areas and across 

units/areas, etc.

• Managers/supervisors (e.g., training, check-ins).

• Technology/equipment needs.

• IT support.

• Other areas of administration/infrastructure – 

facilities, space, footprint, fiscal, HR, etc.

METHOD 3: SURVEY OF STAFF

Information about remote work also was gathered 

from a small group of court employees (n=79) 

through the virtual court proceedings survey 

(described above). Employees who will be covered 

by a hybrid work policy if adopted answered the 

five Likert-type, scaled questions about remote 

work. Staff who provide direct client services such 

as juvenile probation counselors, social workers, 

early resolution case managers, CASA attorneys/

supervisors, and family treatment court staff and 

other staff who provide a variety of services such 

as court coordinators and floaters answered the 

remote work survey questions.

The five Likert-scaled survey questions were:

Overall, my job duties are such that I believe I 

would be able to participate in a hybrid work 

arrangement post pandemic, if permitted.

If court administration continues a hybrid 

work arrangement post pandemic, I believe 

the court will maintain a high level of service 

to court users.

1

2

SECTION 5 Remote Work
92 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

If court administration continues a hybrid 

work arrangement post pandemic, 

I believe employee productivity will 

remain high.

In my opinion, a hybrid work 

arrangement post pandemic will NOT 

adversely affect my team members.

In my opinion, a hybrid work arrangement 

will NOT adversely affect employees in 

other units/areas of the Court.

Remote Work – Evaluation 

Results, Findings, and 

Recommendations

This section provides a detailed summary 

of the remote work evaluation. Findings and 

recommendations are presented at the end of 

this section. 

METHOD 1: LEADERSHIP TEAM MEETING

Directors, managers, and supervisors provided 

the following responses to the study questions. 

A comprehensive summary is provided next. 

Where Remote Work Will / Will Not Work 

Well Post Pandemic.

Next is a summary of the circumstances where 

remote work will work best, and where remote 

work will not work very well (or at all), post 

pandemic, according to directors, managers, 

and supervisors.

3

4

5

TYPE OF WORK/JOB DUTIES

Some job duties are conducive to 

working remotely:

1. Administrative tasks such as data entry/ input, 

paperwork, etc.

2. Work that is done on a computer/ looking 

at a monitor – writing reports/ drafting 

recommendations, attending meetings, 

emails, etc.

3. Serving customers by telephone, email, or video

4. Work that is asynchronous – it can be 

accomplished independently without the 

need for immediate interaction, collaboration, 

or communication with others; it does not 

require a personal handoff

5. Some managerial/supervisory duties can be 

accomplished virtually (e.g., check-in 

meetings, coaching, performance feedback, 

initial interviews, etc.)

Will Work Well Post Pandemic

(not in priority order)

CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE REMOTE 

WORK WILL WORK WELL AND 

NOT VERY WELL 

POST PANDEMIC

POSITIONS

Some positions have job duties that are 

conducive to serving court users while 

working remotely

1. Examples include staff who: provide direct 

client services by email, telephone, or video, 

spend time serving court users/clients in the 

community, work independently and/or do 

data input/work in front of computers, have 

internal support roles such as IT, HR, fiscal

2. Many managerial/supervisory duties can be 

completed virtually (e.g., quick check-ins, team

meetings, coaching/providing feedback, etc.)

SECTION 5 Remote Work
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 93

Will Not Work Very Well Post Pandemic

(not in priority order)

TYPE OF WORK/JOB DUTIES

Some job duties are not conducive to 

working remotely:

1. Serving walk-in customers/court users

2. Meeting in-person with clients/court users 

(in the office, in the community, etc.)

3. Some client services that require being inperson (e.g., fingerprinting, etc.)

4. Work that is synchronous – must be 

completed simultaneously, requires teamwork

coverage, includes time-sensitive handoffs 

and/or sensitive communications

5. Some management responsibilities (e.g., 

hiring, onboarding, training, coaching/

mentoring, team building, etc.). Note some of 

these can be completed virtually but they are 

more effective when at least some of the time 

they are completed when face-to-face)

POSITIONS

Some positions have job duties that are not 

conducive to serving court users while 

working remotely

1. Examples include staff who: support 

courtroom functions, need to be available 

to serve walk-ins (e.g., interpreters, 

facilitators), screen clients, work in teams that 

rely on each other to support court 

operations; must be onsite to support the 

workforce (e.g., facilities, some IT, etc.)

2. Some managerial/supervisory duties are best 

when done in-person (e.g., building 

relationships, onboarding and training new 

employees, performance improvement 

coaching, etc.)

OTHER/MISCELLANEOUS 

CIRCUMSTANCES

1. When staff have the requisite equipment/ 

technology, know how to use it, & have IT 

support to help troubleshoot issues

2. When staff have a suitable workspace 

and work environment (e.g., private, 

ergonomically correct)

3. When health and safety are concerns

4. When physical safety is a high priority

5. When inclement weather occurs 

accomplished virtually (e.g., check-in 

meetings, coaching, performance 

feedback, initial interviews, etc.)

Will Work Well Post Pandemic

(not in priority order)

OTHER/MISCELLANEOUS 

CIRCUMSTANCES

1. When staff do not have the requisite 

technology/equipment, don’t know how to 

use it, or do not have adequate tech 

support

2. When staff do not have a suitable home 

workspace and/or work environment (e.g., 

they do not have a private or quiet space, 

the space is not ergonomically correct, etc.)

Will Not Work Very Well Post Pandemic

(not in priority order)

SECTION 5 Remote Work
94 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

Benefits and Drawbacks. 

The benefits and drawbacks to implementing a hybrid work arrangement based on the 

experiences of directors, managers, and supervisors are summarized in the table below.

1. Spend less time commuting and more time 

working; many report the same or higher levels 

of productivity and high levels of customer 

service via telephone, email, video

2. Increases access and improves convenience 

for many court users/clients when remote/ 

virtual services and assistance are available to 

them; virtual services are responsive to the 

needs of some court users/clients

3. Saves time (commuting) and decreases costs 

(e.g., less mileage reimbursement)

4. More productive and happier employees; hybrid 

increases flexibility, which is a frequent request 

from staff; this improves the morale of 

employees

5. Reduces stress and burnout; improves employee 

well-being; better work-life balance

6. Better for the environment/climate

7. Reduces workplace absences

8. May result in space/cost savings over time – 

need less space if the Court moves toward 

shared space and reduces footprint

Benefits

(not in priority order)

Drawbacks

(not in priority order)

1. Some job duties cannot be done in a remote 

arrangement; some positions have job duties 

that cannot be completed remotely; some 

staff may not feel it is fair for some to be 

able to work remotely/work equity issues; it 

may adversely affect morale, be divisive, and 

exclusive

2. Some onsite staff may have to assume duties 

of others or cover for staff working remotely

3. Some supervisory/managerial duties are more 

difficult in a hybrid arrangement (e.g., creating 

a work schedule that provides adequate 

office coverage; overseeing work and 

monitoring people; team building; building 

a cohesive team; assessing performance and 

productivity; onboarding/ training new staff; etc.)

4. Work/life balance may be difficult to achieve 

for some; the work/non-work line can be 

blurred

5. Some staff may feel isolated from/lack of 

connecting with colleagues

6. Some staff may not have a home environment 

conducive to working remotely; they also 

may not have the necessary technology to 

work remotely, or the technology may fail

7. Service levels and productivity may not be as 

good or may decline, some fear

BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS TO A HYBRID WORK 

ARRANGEMENT POST PANDEMIC

SECTION 5 Remote Work
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 95

Future Opportunities and Concerns.

A hybrid work arrangement post pandemic provides future opportunities and concerns 

for the Court and employees. Future opportunities and concerns identified by directors, 

managers, and supervisors are summarized in the table below.

1. Continue moving to a paperless Court

2. Realize cost savings by reducing office space,

parking needs, travel reimbursement to attend 

meetings, etc.

3. Realize indirect savings including less travel 

time for employees to attend meetings, 

increased productivity, less time doing 

administrative work to process travel 

reimbursements, etc.

4. Continue operations during inclement weather

5. Increases access, services, and safety for court 

users/clients; allows for providing services 

outside of traditional court hours (e.g., evenings, 

weekends, etc.)

6. Increases ability to recruit/fill positions, 

employee motivation/satisfaction, and retention 

– Court is viewed as a progressive organization 

and striving to achieve vision

7. Increases flexibility/options for court users and 

employees

Opportunities

(not in priority order)

Concerns

(not in priority order)

1. Lower levels of customer service and 

productivity

2. Adverse effects on relationships, teamwork, 

cohesion, connectedness, court culture

3. Fairness/perceptions of fairness 

(work equity issues)

4. Some staff may not have equipment, Wi-Fi, 

workspace/environment to work remotely

5. Scheduling, adequate staff onsite to provide 

in-person service, coverage for staff working 

remotely

6. Staff may view it as an “entitlement”

7. Less work-life balance; blurred lines

8. Managing/supervising onsite and remote 

staff effectively

FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES AND CONCERNS WITH A HYBRID WORK 

ARRANGEMENT POST PANDEMIC

What is Necessary for a Hybrid Work 

Arrangement to be Successful.

Directors, managers, and supervisors provided the 

following as necessary to ensure a hybrid work 

arrangement is successful, if implemented across 

administrative divisions/areas of the Court. 

Develop an equitable and inclusive policy 

with clear boundaries and expectations

Develop / implement a clear and effective 

communication and roll-out plan

2

1

SECTION 5 Remote Work
Level of Customer Service

(Internal and External)

1. Service levels have remained high during 

the pandemic. Providing virtual external 

and internal services/support by 

employees working remotely is an 

effective option in many instances. 

Access, convenience, and service levels 

to external customers are enhanced with 

a virtual option.

2. Some external-facing services cannot 

be, or are not as effective when, provided 

virtually (e.g., juvenile screening, 

mediations, evaluations, observations, 

court operations teams), and some court 

users/clients must or prefer to come 

to the courthouse/court location to 

conduct their court business. Thus, 

Court administrative offices must be 

staffed to assist court users/clients who 

do not choose the virtual option and 

instead walk-in for assistance and/or 

make in-person appointments. Essentially

the Court must prepare in the future to 

provide both in-person and hybrid service

options and schedule staff accordingly.

3. A few internal-facing support services 

cannot be provided, or are not as 

effective, when provided virtually. 

For example, facilities support and 

some IT services/support (e.g., help desk 

staff at each courthouse) can only be, or 

are best when, provided onsite/in-person. 

Onboarding and training new employees 

also were identified as being more effective

when done in-person (rather than virtually). 

4. Employees must have and be able to use 

the requisite technology and navigate 

the court’s systems to provide services 

remotely. Having adequate IT support 

is essential for training staff and 

assisting when disruptions occur.

96 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

Apply the policy consistently, if adopted

Enhance skills for managing/supervising a 

hybrid workforce

Need to be able to hold staff accountable for 

performance/service and revoke privileges if 

performance and/or productivity are below 

expectations

Ensure employees have the technology and 

skills to use the technology, and a suitable 

home work environment to complete work/

provide services

Need the support of leadership (judicial and 

administrative)

Continue to evaluate/assess how remote 

work is affecting court culture including 

service to the public, productivity, teamwork, 

etc.; continue making improvements/

refinements

Implement effective scheduling practices 

(e.g., rotations, all onsite days, etc.).

Be aware / assess how a hybrid work 

arrangement is affecting employees and 

other areas of the Court

METHOD 2: DIVISIONAL ANALYSIS

Next is a summary of the effects of remote work 

across all administrative divisions of the Court, 

according to directors, managers, and supervisors. 

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SUMMARY: Effects of Remote Work on 

Administrative Divisions. 

SECTION 5 Remote Work
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 97

Quantity & Quality of Work/Productivity and 

Impact of Remote Work on Team Members

1. Many staff report higher levels of 

productivity working remotely because 

they do not have long commutes and 

they experience fewer interruptions. 

Many report no adverse changes to the 

quantity and quality of work when 

working remotely.

2. A few staff report difficulty focusing on 

their work when in a remote 

environment. They may experience 

competing demands (e.g., childcare, 

caring for elderly) or may be in an 

environment that is not conducive to 

serving customers or doing work (e.g., 

it is not private or quiet, it does not have 

the set up and/or equipment needed to 

complete remote work). In these 

instances, staff productivity levels likely 

decline. 

3. Some duties/responsibilities of staff 

working remotely were shifted to staff 

working onsite. This needs to be 

examined carefully to ensure onsite 

staff are not responsible for more of the 

workload. Job duties may need to 

be divided up differently in a hybrid 

environment. 

4. New employees have a harder time 

acclimating to a new job and connecting 

with team members in a virtual 

environment. Onboarding and training 

new employees are more difficult in a 

virtual environment. Onsite work is 

preferred for new employees.

Team Dynamics/Relationships

1. Seasoned/tenured team members seem 

able to successfully navigate a remote 

environment because they have past 

relationships with their team members 

and are comfortable with their work. 

Collegiality among tenured co-workers 

can be maintained via Zoom/Teams.

2. New or newer employees appear to 

struggle to connect and form 

strong, collegial bonds in a remote work 

environment and are less familiar with 

not only their work but the work of 

their division and the Court as a whole. 

It is difficult for newer employees to 

build strong bonds with their co-workers 

merely through virtual meetings. 

Additional, creative efforts are needed to 

build these connections.

3. Team dynamics including communication 

may be hampered when the team only 

meets virtually. A blend of in-person 

and virtual interactions are desirable 

when trying to develop/maintain 

camaraderie, build trusting relationships, 

foster open communication, and the like. 

4. Some employees may experience 

feelings of isolation and/or burnout 

while working remotely. They do not feel 

connected to their co-workers. 

5. It is difficult for managers/supervisors to 

develop/maintain a culture of inclusion 

and belonging when staff are working 

remotely. A blend of in-person and 

virtual work is desirable for maintaining a 

positive and inclusive work culture.

SECTION 5 Remote Work
98 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

METHOD 3: SURVEY RESULTS

Below are the results to the five remote work 

survey questions that were included on the virtual 

court proceedings survey. These questions were 

answered by a small subset of employees who 

provide direct client and other services. 

The Likert-type scaled questions were:

Overall, my job duties are such that I 

believe I would be able to participate in a 

hybrid work arrangement post pandemic, if 

permitted.

If court administration continues a hybrid 

work arrangement post pandemic, I believe 

the court will maintain a high level of service 

to court users.

If court administration continues a hybrid 

work arrangement post pandemic, I believe 

employee productivity will remain high.

In my opinion, a hybrid work arrangement 

post pandemic will NOT adversely affect my 

team members.

In my opinion, a hybrid work arrangement 

will NOT adversely affect employees in 

other units/areas of the Court.

A 6-point agreement rating scale was used for the 

above questions: 6 = strongly agree; 5 = agree, 4 

= agree somewhat; 3 = disagree somewhat; 2 = 

disagree; and 1 = strongly disagree. 

2

3

4

5

1

Managers/Supervisors

(eg. Training, Check-Ins)

1. Most managerial/supervisory duties can 

be done remotely if needed, however, 

some are more effective when done in 

person. Hiring, training, check-in 

meetings, staff meetings, etc. are more 

efficient and can be effective when done 

virtually. Duties that are more effective 

in person are onboarding, training new 

employees, team building, addressing a 

sensitive/performance issue, etc.

2. Managing a hybrid workforce is/will be 

challenging. Scheduling, communicating, 

ensuring high levels of customer service, 

managing the work and holding staff 

accountable, etc. will be more 

challenging in a hybrid work 

environment, but it is doable. Managers/

supervisors will need to adjust and 

modernize their skills to meet the 

changing times. 

Technology/Equipment Needs/IT Support

1. At the onset of the pandemic, the 

workforce needed to be equipped 

with laptops, other equipment 

(keyboards, monitors), and network 

access to work remotely. Most of the 

equipment needs have been met 

although the Court will need to plan 

for replacement equipment in the 

coming months/years. 

2. IT support continues to be a concern 

for staff working remotely. Although 

most people are not having IT issues 

now, people are concerned about the 

lack of IT support if issues arise. 

SECTION 5 Remote Work
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 99

Other Courtroom Staff (n=17)

RATINGS ON REMOTE WORK QUESTIONS

SELECT EMPLOYEES1 THAT COMPLETED THE VIRTUAL COURT PROCEEDINGS SURVEY 

(in mean scores2)

1 2 3 3.5 4 5 6

5.9

5.8

5.7

5.7

5.7

5.5

5.6

5.5

Overall my job duties are such that I believe I 

would be able to participate in a hybrid work 

arrangement post pandemic, if permitted.

If court administration continues a hybrid 

work arrangement post pandemic, I believe 

the court will maintain a high level of service 

to court users.

If court administration continues a hybrid 

work arrangement post pandemic, I believe 

employee productivity will remain high.

In my opinion, a hybrid work arrangement 

post pandemic will not adversely affect my 

team members.

In my opinion, a hybrid work arrangement will 

not adversely affect employees in other units/

areas of the Court.

1

Staff w/direct contact include juvenile probation counselors, social workers, early resolution case managers, CASA attorneys/supervisors, family 

treatment court staff, etc. Other courtroom staff are court coordinators and floaters (not: the are not full-time in courtrooms).

2Means are based on a 6-point agreement rating scale. 6-Strongly Agree & 1-Strongly Disagree. 3.5 is the midpoint of the rating scale.

Staff w/Direct Client Contact (n=62)

5.5

5.5

The results are presented in mean ratings (i.e., averages). When interpreting the mean scores, the higher the 

mean score, the more favorable the rating. Higher mean scores represent stronger levels of agreement. 3.5 is the 

midpoint of a 6-point rating scale. An average rating above 3.5 is on the agreement side of the rating scale – the 

results are favorable, and below 3.5 is on the disagreement side of the rating scale – the results are unfavorable. 

SECTION 5 Remote Work
EVALUATION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Our findings and recommendations relating to remote work are summarized below:

FINDINGS

100 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

Access to justice. 

Access to justice was enhanced by providing 

remote services and virtual hearings. For 

example, the participation rates of parents 

and youth increased with the availability of 

virtual hearings and meetings. 

Customer service and productivity. 

Over the past 2 years, the Court was 

forced to develop a hybrid service delivery 

model(s), which allowed services to 

be provided by staff working remotely. 

Ad d i t i o n a l l y, c u sto m e r s e r v i ce a n d 

productivity levels of employees were 

perceived to be the same or higher when 

working remotely. The virtual service models 

and options and remote work should be 

continued. They increase flexibility and 

options for court customers and employees.

Job duties conducive for remote work. 

Many job duties at the Court can be 

completed virtually and/or remotely. For 

example, (a) many direct client services, (b) 

work such as data entry, writing reports, 

attending team meetings, responding to 

client emails, and (c) some supervisory 

responsibilities (e.g., check-ins, performance 

coaching) can be completed when working 

remotely. 

Job duties NOT conducive for 

remote work. 

There are some job duties that are not 

conducive to remote work; they must be 

completed at the court location or inperson with clients. Examples include, (a) 

fingerprinting, (b) serving walk-in clients, (c) 

in-person meetings with youth and families, etc. 

Hybrid work arrangements in 

administrative divisions. 

A hybrid work arrangement will work for 

most positions in the Court’s administrative 

divisions, according to directors, managers, 

and supervisors. However, managers report 

a few positions at the Court where remote 

or hybrid work arrangements may not be 

feasible. Examples include, (a) where job 

duties must be completed onsite and/or 

in-person, (b) in small units which present 

coverage/scheduling issues, (c) where there 

are restrictions due to union contracts and 

24x7 operations (e.g., detention center).

Hybrid work is not for everyone. 

Remote work may not be a good option for 

some employees or in some circumstances. 

For example, (a) some employees may not 

have a home environment that is conducive 

to high productivity (it is not private or 

quiet), (b) some may not have the 

SECTION 5 Remote Work
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 101

technology or equipment to work virtually, 

(c) remote work may not be a preference 

for some employees (e.g., they prefer to 

be at an office location, they are able to 

focus better when in the office, they enjoy 

camaraderie, etc.). Additionally, remote work 

is not a good option for new employees 

participating in onboarding and job training 

and employees with disciplinary and/or 

performance issues. 

Leverage the upsides and mitigate 

the downsides to hybrid work 

arrangements.

Th e re a re m a ny b e n e f i t s to hy b r i d 

work. There also are some downsides.

Overwhelmingly directors, managers, and 

supervisors believe hybrid work can and 

should be implemented in the administrative 

divisions post pandemic. Benefits can be 

leveraged and downsides must be mitigated. 

Cost and time savings. 

Cost savings, both to the court and 

employees, along with time savings are 

reported with remote work. Examples 

include, (a) less mileage reimbursement for 

attending meetings, (b) less travel time for 

employees traveling to/from court meetings, 

(c) reduced commuting costs and time for 

employees, etc. Additional savings may be 

realized in the future by continuing a hybrid 

work arrangement (e.g., cost, time, space/

footprint).

Augment the skills of 

managers and supervisor. 

Managers and supervisors seemingly 

navigated remote work well, despite the 

persistent disruption, chaos, and uncertainty 

over the past 2 years. However, they 

acknowledge new and different skills are 

needed to effectively manage and lead 

in a hybrid environment. For example, 

different knowledge, skills, and abilities are 

needed to build relationships, foster team 

cohesiveness, build positive team dynamics, 

promote team collaboration, and maintain 

the court’s culture when managing hybrid 

teams or a distributed workforce.

SECTION 5 Remote Work
102 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

RECOMMENDATIONS: 

Implement a hybrid work policy for employees 

working in the administrative divisions of the 

Court. 

The future of work and service delivery 

are increasingly hybrid. Continue to be a 

progressive organization where you enhance 

access to justice by providing options for virtual 

services and formalize an optimal hybrid work 

arrangement throughout the administrative 

divisions of the Court.

Expand flexible work hours and provide 

other perks to promote equity. 

Expanding flexible hours is another way to 

provide employees with more flexibility. A flex/ 

alternative work arrangement may also assist 

with equity issues. It can be an alternative for 

employees who have job duties or positions 

that do not allow them to work remotely. 

Provide other perks to employees who are not 

eligible for alternative work arrangements to 

promote equity (e.g., paid parking,).

Identify job duties not suitable for 

remote work.

Evaluate position classifications, or the job 

duties for positions, for union and non-union 

staff and categorize as follows:

(1) job duties that cannot be performed 

remotely and are required to be performed at a 

court location/office.

(2) remote eligible job duties that can be 

performed remotely without the loss of 

customer service, productivity, and efficiency.

Once categorized, a hybrid work arrangement 

can be developed to allow an optimal blend of 

onsite and remote work according to customer 

service and division/area needs.

Update position descriptions for a 

hybrid workplace.

Remove antiquated job responsibilities and 

update with current, modern-day descriptions 

of job duties, some of which must be 

completed on site and others which can be 

performed/completed remotely.

Provide Management/leadership skills training. 

Provide managers and supervisors with 

additional training to strengthen and expand 

skills for managing and leading in a hybrid 

work environment.

Evaluate hybrid and/or flex work arrangements.

Implement new work arrangements in the 

administrative divisions (or a few pilots) and 

evaluate the effects on the following areas. 

Continually improve and refine as needed to 

achieve desired outcomes.

1

4

5

6

2

3

SECTION 5 Remote Work
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 103

Customer Service

Productivity and Job Performance (revamp 

performance management system)

Team Collaboration, Communication, Performance

Impact on other employees/areas of the Court

Retention, Satisfaction, and Well-Being

Costs/Savings (fiscal analysis – document 

savings, additional costs, effects on space/

physical footprint, etc. The results can inform 

future policies and practices and budgeting 

for staffing and space needs.)

Preserve/build the Court’s culture.

When implementing hybrid and/or flexible work 

arrangements, be intentional about preserving and 

building the Court’s culture (e.g., collegiality, pride 

in public service/providing justice, professionalism, 

excellent service, etc.). Also be thoughtful and 

deliberate about mitigating the downsides that 

detract from the Court’s culture. For example, (a) 

continually assess and balance/adjust workloads, (b) 

ensure others are not being adversely impacted by 

remote workers; (c) implement special efforts to foster 

teamwork, communication, and collaboration within 

and across teams; (d) adopt new ways to strengthen 

team cohesion, inclusion, and belonging, etc. 

7

SECTION 5 Remote Work
SECTION 6:

The New Future of Work 

– Articles, Research, and 

Resources

104
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 105

The New Future of Work - Articles, Research, and Resources

Overview 

This section of the report provides a summary of 

articles by prominent organizations and authors 

about the evolving future of work. Included are 

areas of general agreement among authors and 

considerations for organizations as they navigate 

the radically changed, hybrid work arrangements 

accelerated by the pandemic. Citations and links to 

articles are provided at the end of this section. 

AUTHORS GENERALLY 

AGREE ON THE FOLLOWING:

• Hybrid work is here to stay; it is the future for

most organizations. Hybrid work – a mix of inperson and remote – is here to stay, according

to experts. The new future of work is hybrid, 

experts overwhelmingly agree. The pandemic 

accelerated the already growing remote work 

trend where more and more employers were 

moving to hybrid work arrangements.

• Flexibility is highest priority. The new future

of work includes flexibility around both “time” 

(the hours of work) and “place” (location 

of work). Employees are seeking flexibility and 

options around both “time” and “place.” Many 

studies show service and productivity levels 

and accountability do not suffer in a hybrid or 

flexible work arrangement. Flexibility is 

becoming the new battle ground in the war for 

talent.

• There is no single, best approach to hybrid 

work. Each organization must determine an 

optimal hybrid arrangement, which will depend 

on the type of work, the needs and culture 

of the organization, and interests, work styles, 

and preferences of employees. Researchers do 

not expect a single workplace model 

to emerge. Instead, they recommend that 

organizations create models that are in tune

with the type of business and balance the

needs of customers, the organization, and 

employees. 

• Remote work works; capture the upsides and

mitigate the downsides. Remote work is what 

you do, it is not a place. Working remotely 

can work for a wide range of jobs / job duties 

(as evidenced by the past 2 years). That said, 

there are upsides and downsides and winners 

a n d l o s e r s . A n o p t i m a l h y b r i d w o r k 

arrangement should capture the upsides of new 

ways of working and also mitigate the 

downsides.

• Upskill and reskill to meet evolving needs. New

and different skills are needed to lead and 

manage hybrid teams or a distributive 

workforce. Provide managers with the needed 

training, coaching, and mentoring to succeed 

in the new world of work. Upskilling and 

reskilling may also be needed throughout 

the workforce. Seize the opportunities to 

update existing or create new positions based 

on the needs of the organization. 

CONSIDERATIONS:

According to Gallup (the Future of Hybrid 

Work: 6 Key Questions Answered with Data):

• Hybrid work must be productive and 

engaging, not just a policy or a perk. 

Both should be a focus when designing 

new work arrangements. 

• Failing to offer flexible work 

arrangements is a significant risk to 

an organization’s hiring, employee 

engagement, performance, well-being, 

and retention strategies.

1

SECTION 6
106 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

SECTION 6 The New Future of Work - Articles, Research, and Resources

• The top reasons employees want a hybrid 

work arrangement center on having the 

flexibility to manage their week and still 

feel connected to their organization. 

Hybrid work helps employees get the 

most out of their day while ensuring 

they feel connected to coworkers and 

the organization. 

• Numerous remote work and flexible 

work arrangements have emerged. There 

is no consensus among employees (or 

employers) on which scheduling policies 

should define hybrid going forward. 

Organizations will need to determine the 

best work arrangements based on the 

type of work and the needs of customers, 

the organization, and employees. 

• Setting guidelines based on job 

responsibilities/duties and continually 

tracking the effectiveness of these 

policies will be critical to leading 

hybrid teams.

• While creating a new normal, 

organizations should avoid getting 

bogged down in policies and rules 

concerning hybrid work. Gallup 

recommends focusing on 3 things: (1) 

boost productivity (i.e., get work done 

efficiently and effectively); (2) increase 

flexibility (i.e., allow personalization 

so employees can thrive at work and 

home); and (3) promote connectivity (i.e., 

encourage the partnerships that support 

teamwork and organizational culture).

There are upsides to hybrid work (combination 

of in-office and remote). They include: save 

time and avoid the stress of commuting, more 

flexibility to balance work and personal demands, 

higher engagement, higher levels of well-being, 

less turnover, lower levels of burnout, fewer 

interruptions/same or higher levels of productivity. 

There also are downsides to hybrid work, which 

include: domestic distractions, blurred work-life 

boundaries and balance, less spontaneous and 

dynamic coworker interactions/collaboration, 

less teamwork, more silos, smaller networks, 

less visibility which can adversely affect career 

path and opportunities, less connection to the 

organization, diminished sense of belonging, 

unfair shifting of work responsibilities to 

others, social and professional isolation, power 

imbalances. 

The pandemic continues to exact a heavy toll 

on working caregivers (e.g., those with children, 

aging parents/dependents). Research by 

Boston Consulting Group shows caregivers are 

experiencing greater stress than ever. This crisis 

is so severe the stress is likely contributing to 

declining levels of productivity and attrition. 

There are many examples of flexible work schedules:

(1) variable start or stop times and options for 

longer breaks; (2) part-time options; (3) job sharing, 

with multiple people covering a single, full-time 

job. Flexible models should be gender neutral and 

available to all employees so everyone can benefit. 

These new or alternative work arrangement should 

be normalized and employees should be treated 

equitably (e.g., it is important to ensure that taking 

advantage of flexible work options does not hinder 

career advancement). (Boston Consulting Group)

2

3

4

5
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 107

SECTION 6 The New Future of Work - Articles, Research, and Resources

Gen Z (between the ages of 18 and 25) is an 

overlooked demographic; they are reportedly 

suffering. According to Microsoft, 60% say they 

are merely surviving or flat out struggling. Young 

people in this generation are more likely to be 

single and early in their careers. They are more 

likely to feel isolated, struggle with motivation / 

engagement at work, or lack the financial means 

to create a proper workspace at home. (Boston 

Consulting Group) 

For remote work arrangements to work, digital 

solutions must be readily available. Staff need 

up to date technology and efficient home offices. 

Some employees may not be well suited for remote 

work (e.g., the home environment is not private or 

quiet).

The world is incredibly complex and continually 

changing. It is unrealistic to think you will get a 

new (hybrid or flexible) work arrangement right 

the first time around or that if you do, it will remain 

the right approach indefinitely. Continually assess 

the effectiveness of work arrangements and 

modify as needed. 

Fostering a social environment rich in collegial 

support (in-person and virtually) is vitally 

important in a hybrid environment.

Job duties and responsibilities should be 

examined and dissected carefully. Positions 

may have some duties that must be done 

onsite and others that can be completed 

virtually. Synchronous work is work that is done 

simultaneously; it requires teamwork/coverage. 

Synchronous work also includes time-sensitive 

handoffs and or time-sensitive communications. 

Synchronous work is best completed in an office, 

co-located environment. Asynchronous work 

can be completed independently without the 

need for immediate interaction, collaboration, or 

communication with others. It does not require a 

personal handoff, and thus, is conducive to working 

remotely.

There is some evidence suggesting team 

members need to be in-person and do some work 

together to foster strong team and healthy team 

dynamics. This also is necessary to build a cohesive 

organizational culture. 

Space and separation from work are essential for 

all employees to promote well-being and avoid 

burnout. Organizations should prioritize, model, 

and reinforce well-being practices. 

New work arrangements should be blended 

with diversity, equity, and inclusion/ belonging 

initiatives. New work arrangements should be 

equitable and promote belonging and inclusion. 

Be aware of visibility biases (out of sight, out of 

mind), power differentials (people on site have 

more formal and informal power), and other biases 

that may disadvantage some people (career 

advancement opportunities are inequitable).

Hybrid and/or flexible work arrangements may 

present opportunities to reexamine and transform 

existing space. Some organizations have been 

able to reduce their footprint while others are 

transforming workspace to promote collegiality, 

collaboration, and relationship building when in the 

office. 

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14
108 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

RESOURCES: LINKS TO ARTICLES

Are you Ready for the Hybrid Workplace? Knowledge@Wharton. March 23, 2021.

https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/are-you-ready-for-the-hybrid-workplace/

Building Effective Hybrid + Remote Leadership Strategies. Owl Labs. April 29, 2022. Download Report.

https://resources.owllabs.com/blog/hybrid-remote-leadership-strategies

Critical Steps for Decreasing Conflict in a Hybrid Workplace. SmartBrief. May 2, 2022.

https://corp.smartbrief.com/original/2022/05/critical-steps-for-decreasing-conflict-in-a-hybridworkplace?utm_source=brief

Designing the Hybrid Office. Harvard Business Review - Magazine. March – April 2021.

https://hbr.org/2021/03/designing-the-hybrid-office

Equity in the Hybrid Office. MIT Sloan Management Review. March 24, 2022.

https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/equity-in-the-hybrid-office/

Figure Out the Right Hybrid Work Strategy for Your Company. Harvard Business Review. June 15, 2021.

https://hbr.org/2021/06/figure-out-the-right-hybrid-work-strategy-for-your-company?autocomplete=true

How Shifts in Remote Behavior Affect Employee Well-Being. MIT Sloan Management Review. April 18, 

2022.

https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-shifts-in-remote-behavior-affect-employee-well-being/

Hybrid Work: Making it Fit with your Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Strategy. McKinsey & Company. April 20, 

2022.

https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/

hybrid-work-making-it-fit-with-your-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-strategy

Managers Can’t Do it All. Harvard Business Review - Magazine. March – April 2022. 

https://hbr.org/2022/03/managers-cant-do-it-all

Slack Research Reveals These 3 Strategies Can Make Hybrid Workforces More Successful. Inc. May 19, 

2022. 

https://www.inc.com/helen-kupp/brian-elliot-slack-management-hybrid-work.html

State of Remote Work 2021. 5th Annual State of Remote Work Report. Owl Labs/Global Workplace 

Analytics. 

https://owllabs.com/state-of-remote-work/2021/

SECTION 6 The New Future of Work - Articles, Research, and Resources
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 109

The Four Essential Dynamics of Hybrid Work. Gallup Organization. March 31, 2022

https://www.gallup.com/workplace/390944/four-essential-dynamics-hybrid-work.aspx

The Future of Hybrid Work: 5 Key Questions Answered with Data. Gallup Organization – Workplace. March 

15, 2022.

https://www.gallup.com/workplace/390632/future-hybrid-work-key-questions-answered-data.aspx

The Great Resignation has Changed the Workplace for Good. We’re Not Going Back,” says the Expert who 

Coined the Term. CNBC. May 10, 2022

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/10/-the-great-resignation-has-changed-the-workplace-for-good-.html

The How-To of Hybrid Work. Boston Consulting Group. April 2021.

https://www.bcg.com/publications/2021/identifying-postpandemic-work-model

The Loneliness of the Hybrid Worker. MIT Sloan Management Review. May 2, 2022.

file:///D:/OneDrive/Downloads/the-loneliness-of-the-hybrid-worker.pdf

The Next Great Disruption is Hybrid Work – Are We Ready? Microsoft – the 2021 Work Trend Index. March 

22, 2021. Download Report.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/worklab/work-trend-index/hybrid-work

Two Years Into COVID: The State of Human Connection at Work. WorkHuman. March 28, 2022. Download 

Report. 

https://www.workhuman.com/resources/diversity-inclusion/two-years-into-covid-the-state-of-humanconnection-at-work

US Employee Engagement Slump Continues. Gallup Organization. April 25, 2022.

https://www.gallup.com/workplace/391922/employee-engagement-slump-continues.aspx

With Caregivers in Crisis, Companies Need to Step Up. Boston Consulting Group. December 1, 2021. 

https://www.bcg.com/publications/2021/working-caregivers-in-crisis-need-company-support

SECTION 6 The New Future of Work - Articles, Research, and Resources
110 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

APPENDICES:

Appendix A

Appendix B
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 111

APPENDIX A: 

WORKSHEET - DECISION-MAKING PROCESS - EVALUATE OPTIONS USING SELECTION CRITERIA

Option/Criteria

Broad 

Impact 

(Courtwide)

Upholds 

Core 

Values

Potential 

Long-Term 

Benefits

Evaluate 

Hunches/

Conflicting 

Perceptions

Counts

Virtual Court Proceedings

Virtual Jury Selection

Remote Work

Virtual Interpreting

Virtual Jury Trials

Virtual Collaboration w/Partners

Scheduling/Calendaring 

& Assignment Process

Court Governance

Others

Counts

APPENDICES
1. Virtual court proceedings are appropriate 

and effective for motions, hearings, and 

calendars. (They are not fine for virtual 

trials).

2. Video hearings work well on guardianship, 

probate, and vulnerable adult protection 

matters. Video hearings should continue for 

the Ex Parte guardianship/probate calendar. 

Contempt proceedings, show cause 

hearings, and motions are also appropriate 

for Zoom.

3. Virtual is appropriate for motions, status 

conferences, and other pre-trial matters. 

(It is not appropriate for trials of any type).

4. Family law trials are far more efficient on 

Zoom.

5. Virtual proceedings are efficient and 

economical for routine procedures.

6. Zoom is a convenient and effective way 

for parties and the court to conduct civil 

hearings.

7. It works well for all motion hearings; it 

should continue in the future.

8. It worked better than I thought; we used 

professional help to manage the use of 

technology.

9. Taking testimony by remote video is 

reasonable (but a trial by Zoom is not).

10. If all parties stipulate to a zoom trial, then 

it is appropriate (but one party should not 

be able to force another party into a zoom 

trial). Video proceedings work well for 

most hearings including voir dire (however, 

they should not be imposed for a trial over 

objection of the parties).

11. Video hearings present opportunities 

for the Court to update processes for 

transcripts and recordings of hearings: e.g., 

allowing parties to opt-in to a recorded 

session would alleviate some of the staffing 

and budgetary constraints involved in 

keeping transcripts. Creating a record is 

a very important part of the function of 

trial courts – the process can/should be 

streamlined/simplified with the use of 

virtual hearings. 

12. Zoom hearings have made court hearings/

proceedings much more accessible for 

clients. I hope the Court continues with 

them in the future.

13. After a small learning curve, using video is a 

great method for hearings.

14. Video hearing saved me time and my clients 

a lot of money. 

15. Video court is very efficient for shorter 

proceedings. I highly recommend it 

continue as an option in the future.

16. I highly recommend the Court continue 

using the online platform. It streamlines the 

process, is safer, healthier, and easier.

17. Video court proceedings save time, money, 

and energy (e.g., travel, transportation, 

112 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

APPENDICES

Positive comments about virtual court proceedings:

APPENDIX B: 

SUMMARY OF ATTORNEY RESPONDENTS’ COMMENTS – 

VIRTUAL COURT PROCEEDINGS
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 113

APPENDICES

Positive comments about virtual court 

proceedings:

Comments preferring in-person 

proceedings:

parking). They have increased my efficiency 

and they are effective. Clients appreciated 

not having to take off work to travel to/from 

the court. This option is a “value-added” 

service to attorneys and clients/litigants.

18. Virtual hearings decreases/removes 

barriers to participation (e.g., litigants 

miss less, work, easier to handle childcare, 

less of a financial impact on lowincome clients, etc.). Judicial officers 

made accommodations to make sure 

technology was not an impediment for 

some.

19. Video court proceedings work well for 

family law motions. 

20. Video proceedings are an improvement 

to the court system as long as in-person 

remains an option for some situations and 

at the request of the parties.

21. Virtual hearings are appropriate for 

judge’s motions and non-compliance 

hearings (but family law motions, 

especially ex parte motions, should return 

to in-person ASAP.

22. Zoom worked great for guardianship and 

probate matters.

23. There are some shortcomings with 

remote arguments, but the efficiencies 

of remote proceedings are tremendous. 

For trials, calling witnesses is easier and 

prospective jurors do not waste time 

sitting around the court waiting to be 

called. The Court has done an excellent 

job making things work smoothly.

24. Video proceedings make access to justice 

more affordable for the public. 

25. Video proceedings are helpful when 

witnesses/others are in different states/

countries.

26. Virtual court proceedings are not effective 

for trials; it’s difficult to connect with 

jurors.

27. Zoom is not effective for some 

proceedings: e.g., in Ex-Parte, the 

collegiality of working with opposing 

counsel is eliminate; getting orders 

written with opposing counsel is difficult; 

it takes too long to get signed copies of 

orders once submitted; it is difficult to get 

certified copies after the hearing especially 

when you need letters right away; Zoom 

is difficult for the attorney to effectively 

present evidence and argue the case; etc. 

In person proceedings are preferred for 

many matters including dispositive motion 

hearings and trials.

28. Zoom trials are not more effective than 

in-person; in-person should resume once 

physical distancing is no longer necessary.

29. Contested hearings should not be virtual; 

trials should never be virtual.

Positive comments about virtual court 

proceedings:
114 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT – SJI PANDEMIC GRANT

Comments preferring in-person proceedings:

30. Virtual proceedings do not work well for 

jury trials and/or MSJ arguments.

31. Video proceedings for civil jury trials 

are not appropriate; the jury, judge, and 

litigants should be in the same room. This 

is necessary for a fair trial.

32. Complex situations and trials should be 

conducted in-person.

33. In-person is best; the Court should not 

compromise the rights and needs of 

litigants to make things more convenient, 

less time consuming, and less expensive. 

34. Criminal proceedings on Zoom are not 

taken seriously by the defendant. Criminal 

matters should be held in-person.

35. In-person hearings are best for dispositive 

and evidentiary hearings (e.g., motions 

for summary judgment, supplemental 

proceedings, and/or trial).

36. Virtual proceedings should be available 

only if necessary and in emergency 

situations, but not a regular practice of the 

Court.

37. Virtual criminal jury trials are not fair to 

the defendant. Need to be able to see the 

jurors.

38. The MS teams platform seems more 

flexible for non-jury proceedings; the 

functionality for document sharing and 

marking was easier to manage with various 

exhibit types and multi-media. 

39. Trials should be in-person unless all 

parties agree to Zoom.

40. Telephonic hearings are not effective. 

Zoom/video is much preferred. Zoom/

video should be required.

41. When taking testimony, the Court needs 

assurances of “who else is in the room.”

42. People are distracted / multi-tasking 

when using Zoom – jurors, the judge, 

counsel, etc.; counsel coaches their clients 

and it is not caught.

43. You cannot establish a rapport with 

jurors when virtual and many jurors were 

distracted. Jurors are unable to establish 

the credibility of witnesses when virtual. 

44. People without technology or technology 

skills get a “pass” from jury service; 

people are excluded from participating. 

A large population for jury duty are 

unrepresented when doing virtual trials.

45. Civility is lost during some virtual 

hearings – litigants, commissioners, etc.

46. I have concerns about 3rd party presence 

and involvement with virtual proceedings.

47. Zoom hearings undermine the judicial 

process. There is less human interaction 

and judicial officers are more likely to be 

Comments preferring in-person proceedings:

Concerns expressed about virtual 

court proceedings: 

APPENDICES
Response of the King County Superior Court to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned, Findings, Recommendations 115

disrespectful and short toward litigants and 

attorneys. It seems judicial officers take 

legal proceedings less seriously when they 

are conducted virtually resulting in unjust 

results for clients and wasted time and 

resources for everyone. 

48. I have concerns about the credibility of 

witnesses. Demeanor is hidden or obscured 

when using video testimony.

49. Virtual interpreting is much slower than inperson interpreting.

50. The human interaction is lost with virtual 

proceedings. It’s difficult to assess the 

credibility of witnesses, observe body 

language, and observe other factors that 

come into play when deciding cases. 

51. Some litigants – older, immigrants, with 

disabilities, poor/homeless – do not 

have access to the technology or are not 

comfortable with equipment/on camera. 

52. Opposing attorneys are more aggressive / 

less courteous when on Zoom.

53. The atmosphere of the courtroom 

has vanished using Zoom. A virtual 

environment does not provide the qualities 

necessary for litigation (e.g., reading jurors, 

body language/non-verbal cues, etc.

54. Virtual translation is concerning. It does not 

allow the translator and party to confer and 

validate understanding.

55. Juror misconduct and low juror 

engagement are concerns.

Concerns expressed about virtual 

court proceedings: 

APPENDICES