1 | The Use of Remote Hearings in Texas State Courts

December 2021 

FINAL REPORT

The Use of Remote Hearings 

in Texas State Courts: 

The Impact on Judicial Workload

COURT CONSULTING DIVISION | NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS
2 | The Use of Remote Hearings in Texas State Courts

This document has been prepared under an agreement between the National Center 

for State Courts and the Texas Office of Court Administration pursuant to grant 

number SJI-P-012 from the State Justice Institute. The points of view and opinions 

offered in this report do not necessarily represent the official policies or position the 

State Justice Institute. 

© 2021 NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS
December 2021

National Center for State Courts

Court Consulting Division

Project Staff

Brian Ostrom, Ph.D., Project Director

John Douglas, B.A.

Suzanne Tallarico, M.A.

Shannon Roth

The Use of Remote Hearings 

in Texas State Courts: 

The Impact on Judicial Workload

December 2021 

NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS | COURT CONSULTING DIVISION
The authors wish to acknowledge the invaluable contributions of the 

many judicial officers who participated in this project from the counties 

of Brewster, Collin, Dallas, Lubbock, Tom Green, Travis, Uvalde/Real, 

and Webb. An undertaking of this nature is not possible without the 

assistance of the dedicated members of the Texas judiciary who gave 

their valuable time to this project.

Over the course of this 12-month study, we were fortunate to draw 

on the support of a distinguished advisory committee. The Texas 

Judicial Needs Assessment Committee, composed of judges and 

judicial officers from across the state, informed many of the decisions 

underlying this study and will guide the upcoming statewide study of 

judicial workload.

We extend a special note of thanks to David Slayton, Jeffrey Tsunekawa, 

and Sheri Woodfin from the Office of Court Administration and Michelle 

White from the State Justice Institute for their guidance, hard work, 

and dedication in steering this project to a successful completion. We 

are also extremely grateful to our NCSC colleague Erika Bailey for her 

careful review of this report.

Acknowledgments
National Center for State Courts | 5

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary i

I. Introduction 1

II. Time Study Participants and Case Filings 2

III. Developing the Study’s Parameters 3

Case Type Categories 3

 Case-Related and Non-Case-Related Judicial Events 4

IV. Average Hearing Times: In-Person versus Remote 5

 Discussion 7

	 	 Implications of Findings and Recommendations 15

Recommendations 17

Appendices 20

Appendix A: Texas Remote Hearing Study Case Type Categories 21

Appendix B: Texas Remote Hearing Study Case-Related Activity Categories 

and Definitions 22

Appendix C: Texas Remote Hearing Study Non-Case-Related Activity Categories 

and Definitions 24
i | The Use of Remote Hearings in Texas State Courts

Executive Summary

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Texas state courts moved quickly to 

implement remote court hearings, in many cases to ensure ongoing access to the courts. 

To date, little research has been conducted regarding the impact of implementing remote 

hearings on courts and court users. Being able to systematically measure differences in hearing 

length relative to in-person hearings and other consequences of remote hearings is essential for 

state court decision makers seeking to determine the extent to which remote hearings should 

be maintained post-pandemic. 

The current project involves an analysis of a sample of eight Texas court jurisdictions to empirically 

investigate the implementation of remote hearings on the efficiency of judicial workload practices 

and to explore potential benefits, such as improved access to and quality of justice delivered 

through the courts. The participating judges tracked their work time for a three-week period in April 

2021, indicating whether hearings were conducted in-person or remotely. During this time period, 

approximately 85% of all hearings were conducted remotely, and, as of December 2021, many Texas 

courts continue to hold most hearings in this manner. NCSC conducted three focus groups with a 

subset of participating judges to explore the results of the study.
National Center for State Courts | ii

Findings

Overall, this study found remote hearings tend to take about one-third longer (34%) than when 

hearings are held in-person. That is, on average, a hearing that takes about 30 minutes in-person 

takes about 40 minutes remotely. To explore the implications of these findings, NCSC staff held 

a series of three focus groups with 15 judges who fully participated in the time study. The main 

purpose of the focus groups was to gather judicial perspective on a range of issues related to 

court workload that involves both remote and in-person hearings. Several themes emerged from 

this study.

Hearing length. The time study indicated that remote hearings take longer than in-person 

hearings. Judges generally confirmed that their experience aligned with the study findings that 

remote hearings take longer and that the increased time is largely the result of technical issues, 

lack of preparation by parties, fewer default judgments due to the accessibility of attending 

hearings remotely, and increased numbers of parties in hearings. 

Benefits of remote hearings. Texas judges reported that holding remote hearings has definite 

benefits for expanding access to justice for many litigants, despite taking somewhat longer 

on average. One major advantage to litigants is the added convenience of not needing to take 

time off work, locate transportation, or find childcare. In some jurisdictions, remote practice 

allows litigants, including those who are self-represented, to schedule hearings at specific 

times (or within short time windows). This practice provides court users greater precision 

and flexibility in scheduling a court appearance. Remote hearings may also expand access 

to courts for witnesses, victims, experts, and other court stakeholders who live in remote 

locations or who fear for their safety in court. Likewise, there is the opportunity for wider 

participation in many types of family-related cases, especially divorce, child welfare, and 

child protective services cases. 

Challenges of remote hearings. Texas judges identified several technology-related problem 

areas in line with national patterns. A primary concern is the “digital divide,” the issue that people 

may have uneven access to the technology needed to participate in remote hearings (e.g., lack 

of a computer or internet access). Relatedly, litigants may have limited experience using online 

videoconferencing, causing delays in court proceedings. Trouble navigating the technology can 

deepen when inexperienced court users need to submit documents or use visual aids. Texas 

judges also reported having mixed success with the remote-hearing platform when cases 

involved interpreters. Because the Texas judges believe the use of remote hearings will remain 

a part of court practice going forward, they clearly recognize the need for ongoing attention to 

creative and inclusive solutions to access issues. 
iii | The Use of Remote Hearings in Texas State Courts

Proceedings that lend themselves to remote hearings. Judges were asked whether certain types 

of cases or types of hearings are more or less suited for remote hearings. Texas judges agreed 

that the type of case is less relevant than the type of hearing—in most instances. Generally 

speaking, remote hearings function most effectively with hearings that are short in nature and 

limited in scope, such as setting trial dates, status hearings, permanency hearings, discovery 

hearings, motions hearings of various types, self-represented divorce dockets (especially when 

parties have completed agreements), and non-evidentiary or non-witness cases. Additionally, 

in terms of case types that work well for remote dockets, judges indicated the type of matters 

that affect people’s ability to get on with their lives, such as many probate proceedings, child 

protective services, and other family law cases, work well. 

Impact of remote hearings on judges. Across the three focus groups, as well as during 

introductory discussions with judges conducted before the time study, the consensus is that 

remote proceedings will continue for the foreseeable future. Judges reported that, while remote 

hearings can be exhausting, they are beneficial to litigants in many ways and allow for broader 

inclusion of interested parties than in-person hearings. However, courts should also focus on 

ways to reduce judicial stress and “Zoom fatigue” when handling remote proceedings. 

Implications of Findings and Recommendations

This exploratory study has revealed there are both benefits and challenges associated with the 

current case-processing practices used in handling hearings remotely. The need for ongoing 

attention to reducing technology problems was a recurrent theme during the Texas focus groups, 

one corroborated by other recent studies conducted elsewhere around the country. 

A primary benefit of remote hearings is the opportunity to significantly improve the court 

experience for court users in select types of hearings and cases. Remote hearings are often more 

convenient because they allow for more precise scheduling and reduce obstacles to attending 

related to such issues as transportation, childcare, and work schedules. According to most 

judges and attorneys interviewed and surveyed across a variety of studies conducted since the 

pandemic began, remote hearings will be an ongoing reality in courts across the country. 

Aside from technological concerns, courts will need to address other challenges with pre-hearing 

preparation associated with the swift move to remote practices. Texas judges noted a major 

focus in court administration involves improving the efficiency of remote hearings, including 

better use of judicial officer time, improved scheduling and notice of remote proceedings, and 

workable methods to respond to individual users’ questions. 
National Center for State Courts | iv

Recommendations

1. Judicial leadership should generate guidelines regarding how best to determine when a 

court proceeding should be conducted in-person or remotely. 

2. Judges and court administration should determine the most effective way to schedule 

hearings that provide for the greatest efficiency in the court, while also being mindful of 

litigants’ time. 

3. Remote court participants will benefit from clearly delineated instructions and expectations 

for hearings. 

4. Court systems should develop clearly written (and other formats) instructions for remote 

proceedings on courtroom decorum and expectations of litigants, including timeliness, dress 

code, and appropriate places from which to log into a hearing. 

5. Before any hearing, the court should ensure that all required paperwork and agreements 

between parties have been appropriately completed. 

6. Courts should not assume that all parties have access to the proper equipment (e.g., 

computers, tablets, smart phones) necessary to participate in remote court proceedings. 

If individuals do not have access to the appropriate technology, courts should make such 

equipment available to court users in a safe and easily accessible location.

7. When interpreters are used, the court should ensure that the non-English-speaking litigant’s 

attorney has briefed the interpreter on the case and how to use the communication system. 

8. Court systems should find ways to preempt judicial burnout from holding lengthy sets of 

back-to-back remote hearings. Judges should be encouraged to take regular breaks during 

and between hearings. 

9. Since remote hearings appear to be permanent, court systems should consider hiring 

“technical bailiffs” or additional court staff responsible for setting hearing links, scheduling 

parties, contacting parties before the hearings, and addressing technical issues that arise 

during remote hearings. 
1 | The Use of Remote Hearings in Texas State Courts

I. Introduction

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Texas state courts moved quickly to 

implement remote court hearings, in many cases to ensure ongoing access to the courts. On 

March 19, 2020, the Supreme Court of Texas and Texas Court of Criminal Appeals jointly issued 

Emergency Order 3 (20-944; 20-008) relating to court closures due to the pandemic.1

 The orders 

stated that “courts must not conduct non-essential proceedings in person contrary to local, 

state, or national directives, whichever is most restrictive, regarding maximum group size.” 

There are currently approximately 1,500 Texas trial courts actively using Zoom to conduct remote 

hearings.2 While state court leadership anticipates that the virtual delivery of court services will 

remain an integral part of court business practices in the years to come, many important yet 

unanswered questions remain about the impact on judicial workload. 

Understanding the impact of remote hearings on judicial time and case management practices 

relative to in-person hearings is essential for state court decision makers to determine the extent 

to which remote hearings will be maintained post-pandemic. The current analysis is intended 

to assist in the design and conduct of the statewide workload assessment study that will be 

conducted in Texas in the fall of 2022. It is also hoped that the findings from the current study 

will aid other states as they weigh the value of the use of virtual versus in-person delivery of 

court services. 

The current project involves an analysis of a sample of Texas courts to empirically investigate the 

implementation of remote hearings on judicial workload, as well as to explore potential benefits 

and challenges to this evolving style of work. This is not a traditional weighted caseload study 

in which the amount of time judges spend on different types of cases is measured and a judicial 

needs model is developed; rather, it is an exploratory effort to determine the differences between 

remote versus in-person hearings, in terms of both elapsed time for each and the judicially 

perceived strengths and weaknesses of these two modalities of court hearings.

1 https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1449339/209044.pdf

2 The Texas Judicial Branch purchased Zoom licenses for each judge early in the pandemic.
National Center for State Courts | 2

II. Time Study Participants

This limited-scope study was initially intended to include judicial officers from six jurisdictions 

of varying sizes (e.g., two large, two midrange, and two smaller). In the end, eight jurisdictions, 

including 52 judges, took part in the time study. Participating judges tracked and entered the time 

they spent on their judicial officer duties during the three-week period spanning April 12 through 

April 30, 2021. The participating jurisdictions and the number of judges from each county who 

participated are shown in Figure 1.

Jurisdiction Number of Judges 

Who Participated

Brewster County (Small) 1

Collin County (Large) 8

Dallas (Large) 1

Lubbock County (Midrange) 2

Tom Green County (Midrange) 6

Travis County (Large) 21

Uvalde/Real County (Small) 3

Webb County (Midrange) 10

Total: 8 counties 52

FIGURE 1:

Texas Jurisdictions and 

Number of Judges 

Included in the Limited-Scope 

Study on Hearing Types
3 | The Use of Remote Hearings in Texas State Courts

III. Developing the Study’s 

 Parameters

Before commencing the current study comparing remote to in-person court hearings, the 

National Center for State Courts (NCSC) began planning a statewide weighted caseload study for 

trial court judges in Texas. The statewide study was suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

During the first meeting of the statewide study’s advisory committee, a set of 31 separate case 

types were selected, for which case weights are to be developed. The committee also identified 

four case-related event categories to distinguish judicial work at different points in the life of a 

case (e.g., pretrial, jury trial). 

Given the more tightly focused nature of the current project, the NCSC team worked with the 

Texas Office of Court Administration (OCA) staff to collapse the case types into fewer categories 

for ease of data tracking and to expand the case event categories to differentiate whether 

hearings were conducted in-person or remotely. 

Case Type Categories

The case type categories for the current study consisted of 12 categories shown in Figure 2; each

case type was defined in the glossary provided to the study’s participants. Appendix A provides 

a description of each of the 12 case types.

Case Type

Felony A

Felony B

Misdemeanor

Injury/Damage with Motor Vehicle

Injury/Damage no Motor Vehicle

Contract

Other Civil

Divorce

Other Family Law

Modifications/Enforcements

Delinquency

Child Protective Services

FIGURE 2: 

Texas Case Types by Category
National Center for State Courts | 4

Case-Related and Non-Case-Related Judicial Events

Disaggregating case-related work into meaningful events allowed NCSC staff to measure the 

amount of time spent by judges on hearings conducted at each stage of the court process. For the 

statewide study, the advisory committee identified four main event categories, shown in Figure 3 

(Appendix B provides the definition of events). To determine the differences between in-person 

hearings and remote hearings, events were further broken down by the hearing modality (inperson vs. remote), for a total of eight distinct events.

NCSC also collected information on non-case-specific activities, such as continuing education and 

judges’ meetings, that are not directly related to a particular case, but are nonetheless essential to 

a judge’s work. These activities, defined as non-case-related activities, are presented in Figure 4; 

Appendix C provides the definitions. For the current project, NCSC compared the average amount of 

time associated with this work in early 2021 to the amount of time spent on non-case-specific work 

measured in the last statewide workload assessment study conducted by NCSC in 2007. In the 

previous time study, the data showed between 2 and 2.5 hours per day were dedicated to non-caserelated work. In the current study, this time was reduced to 1.75 hours per day, presumably due to 

judges’ attending fewer meetings and engaging in less community outreach during the pandemic. 

Pretrial activities: IN-PERSON

Pretrial activities: REMOTE

Bench trial activities: IN-PERSON

Bench trial activities: REMOTE

Jury trial activities: IN-PERSON

Jury trial activities: REMOTE

Posttrial activities: IN-PERSON

Posttrial activities: REMOTE

FIGURE 3:

Texas Case-Related Events

Non-case-related administration

General legal research

Judicial education and training

Committees, meetings, and related time

Community activities and public outreach

Work-related travel 

Vacation, sick leave

Lunch and breaks

Technology-related work or issues

Time study data tracking and reporting

Non-case-related specialty court activities

FIGURE 4: 

Texas Non-Case-Related Events
5 | The Use of Remote Hearings in Texas State Courts

IV. Average Hearing Times: 

 In-Person versus Remote

At the heart of this inquiry is whether there are differences in the average time spent by judges 

in handling in-person and remote hearings. To answer this question, a three-week time study 

was conducted in which judges from the participating jurisdictions, including district court 

judges and judges from the county courts at law, tracked their time by case type and event. 

Data were collected using an online data collection instrument where judges entered discrete 

blocks of time spent on a particular type of case, event, and hearing modality. NCSC computed 

the average amount of time associated with remote and in-person hearings, by hearing event 

category and case type.

During the time study period, most proceedings in the participating courts were conducted 

remotely. In aggregate, 86% of the total time reported was identified as remote work, compared 

to 14% in-person. Another way to look at the data is by individual time entry to estimate the 

amount of time a judge spent on a remote or in-person hearing, with each entry representing a 

single block of work.3

 When calculated, a similar pattern emerged, with 85% of individual time 

entries being conducted remotely compared to 15% in-person.4

Recall, judges were asked to record their time by case type and event category. They indicated 

whether they were working on pretrial events (e.g., arraignment, pretrial motions, scheduling 

conference); bench trial activities (i.e., all activity related to a trial where the judge is finder of 

fact); jury trial activities (i.e., all activity related to a trial where a jury is the finder of fact); or 

post-disposition events (e.g., sentencing revocation, guardianship review). This data collection 

strategy allowed NCSC staff to examine a wide range of case types and distinguish at what point 

in the life of a case the work was being done. 

Using the time study data, NCSC staff computed the average times for in-person and remote 

pretrial events for each case type. This approach was adopted because while the participating 

jurisdictions’ case management systems were able to provide an accurate count of the number 

3 Participants were not instructed to enter each hearing as an individual event; however, participants did enter time in discrete event

categories. For example, a judge might enter 20 minutes for a single arraignment or 60 minutes for three arraignments. Internal consistency by each judge in recording practice is assumed in this analysis. Focus group responses by participating judges provided strong

support for this assumption.

4 In total, 1.25 million minutes of judicial time was collected during the time study.
National Center for State Courts | 6

of cases filed during the time study period, the systems did not track the number or type of 

hearings held. In addition, the case management data did not include information on manner of 

disposition (e.g., bench trial, jury trial) or whether an event occurred post-disposition. That is, 

counts do not exist of the number of bench or jury trials held during the study or the number of 

post-disposition events. These limitations restricted NCSC analysis to pretrial activity, as that 

occurs in all cases filed. Consequently, NCSC focused on the amount of time judges spent on 

pretrial matters in both remote and in-person environments. 

In addition, it is likely that the measure of “pretrial event” time is aligned with individual “pretrial 

hearing” time for the case types examined. This assumption was tested and generally verified 

in two ways. First, the length of the time entries recorded by active judicial participants were 

calculated. Of the approximately 1,700 individual pretrial event times entered during the time study, 

about two-thirds were 30 minutes or less, in line with expected individual pretrial hearing length. 

Second, focus groups were conducted in October with a sample of the participating judges. 

When judges were asked about their method for entering data, they tended to corroborate that 

in many cases hearing times were entered for each hearing, so that one time entry represents 

a single hearing. Of equal importance, all judges confirmed that they used a consistent method 

in entering time during the study. That is, they either entered time by individual hearing or they 

grouped similar hearings together as a single block of time (e.g., three hearings of the same type 

took a total of 60 minutes). This suggests time data were collected in individually consistent 

fashion among participating judges, thereby allowing for direct comparison between remote and 

in-person proceedings. In the remainder of this document, we will refer to remote and in-person 

pretrial “hearings,” although we recognize that the time estimates will somewhat overstate the 

actual length of an individual hearing. 

Figure 5 provides the average pretrial hearing times and the number of hearings examined 

for remote and in-person hearings by case type. In addition, the figure shows the percentage 

difference in time between remote and in-person hearings. For example, for Felony A (Person) 

cases, in-person hearings take an average of 40 minutes and remote hearings average 53 

minutes, a difference of 34%.
7 | The Use of Remote Hearings in Texas State Courts

Discussion

The analysis shows that remote hearings take longer than in-person hearings for 10 of the 11 

case types examined. As can be seen, the difference in time between the two hearing modalities 

varies by case type. Overall, remote hearings tend to take about one-third longer (34%) than 

when hearings are held in-person. 

Figure 5 also shows the number of hearings upon which the time estimates are based. While 

the study was limited in scope, the results do draw on a sizable overall number of hearings. Of 

course, given the time period in which the study was conducted, the majority of hearings were 

held remotely (85%). This means that for some case types, such as Contract, the sample of inperson hearings is small and suggests caution in extrapolating the results to all Contract cases. 

However, for most of the other case types the sample sizes are sufficient for placing reasonable 

confidence in the results. 

FIGURE 5:

Pretrial Hearing Times and Number of 

Hearings by Case Type

ESTIMATED HEARING TIMES NUMBER OF HEARINGS

Pre-trial Hearing In-Person Remote Percentage Difference In-Person Remote

Felony A (Person) 40 53 1.34 42 124

Felony B (Property) 31 40 1.27 51 138

Injury Damage w/ Vehicle 26 45 1.73 16 104

Injury Damage - No Vehicle 68 73 1.07 12 52

Contract 13 58 4.43 5 117

Other Civil 48 80 1.69 36 226

Divorce 30 65 2.16 28 195

Other Family Law 59 72 1.22 26 224

Modifications/Enforcements 64 47 0.73 17 107

Delinquency 94 104 1.11 4 71

Child Protective Services 102 132 1.29 9 82

Overall Average 52 70 1.34 246 1,440
National Center for State Courts | 8

To explore the implications of these findings, NCSC staff held a series of three focus groups 

with 15 judges who fully participated in the time study. The main purpose of the focus groups 

was to gather judicial perspectives on a range of issues related to court workload that involve 

both remote and in-person hearings. A unanimous belief was that the use of remote court 

proceedings will continue. The focus groups also agreed that all judges and court staff need 

efficient and effective processes to ensure court users receive equal access to justice regardless 

of how proceedings are held. 

Specific topics included:

1. Hearing length.

2. Benefits of remote hearings for court users. 

3. Challenges of remote hearings for court users.

4. Hearing types best suited for remote hearings.

5. The impact of remote hearings on judicial stress.

These topic areas are discussed below.

1. Hearing length. 

Texas judges generally were not surprised with the findings showing that remote hearings take 

longer than those conducted in-person. This result fits with their perceptions from handling both 

types of hearings. When asked why, judges were quick to say the increased time is largely the 

result of technical issues from hearing participants, such as difficulty logging onto the Zoom 

platform, connectivity problems related to limited bandwidth, or difficulty sharing screens or 

uploading documents and exhibits. In many instances, resolution of technological issues fell to 

judges or court staff, who are not trained to address them. Regardless, judges and court staff 

have undertaken these additional tasks as part of their regular duties, even though it adds stress 

and reduces the time available for handling their remaining caseload. 

This finding aligns with results from a recent study of Child Abuse and Neglect cases conducted 

in September 2020 by the Nevada Court Improvement Program (CIP).5 The study found that four 

of the five types of hearings examined took longer when conducted remotely. On average, remote 

hearings took about 39% longer. This finding is similar to what was found in the current study 

5 A. Summers and S. Gatowski, Nevada Court Improvement Program Remote Hearings Study (2020). The study collected data on 123

hearings from five judicial districts and included 58 remote hearings and 65 in-person hearings.
9 | The Use of Remote Hearings in Texas State Courts

for Texas judges handling Child Protective Services cases (Child Abuse and Neglect cases): 

remote hearings were 29% longer. As in Texas, the additional time in Nevada (relative to inperson hearings) was found to be largely due to technology-related issues. 6

A comparable study of Abuse and Neglect cases conducted by the Utah Court Improvement 

Program in October 2021 also found that remote hearings take longer than in-person hearings.7

In this case, remote hearings were about 80% longer, with the primary reason for lengthier 

proceedings being technology related. 

2. Benefits of remote hearings for court users. 

Texas judges reported that holding remote hearings has definite benefits for many litigants, 

despite taking somewhat longer on average. One major advantage is the added convenience of 

not needing to take time off work, locate transportation, or find childcare. In some jurisdictions, 

remote practice allows litigants, including those who are self-represented, to schedule hearings 

at specific times (or within short time windows). This practice provides court users greater 

precision and flexibility in scheduling a court appearance. Remote hearings may also expand 

access to courts for witnesses, victims, experts, and other court stakeholders who live in 

remote locations or who fear for their safety in court. Likewise, there is the opportunity for wider 

participation in many types of family-related cases, especially Divorce, Child Welfare, and Child 

Protective Services cases. 

For example, one judge stated that “many pro se cases lend themselves to Zoom dockets. A 

lot of times we have issues like non-service or other issues that take a small amount of time to 

figure out and do not require everyone to come to court.” Another judge stated, “It is emotionally 

easier for the parties to get through a divorce if they are not in the same room. Divorces are still 

a drain, and participants even break down remotely, but it is easier to get through.” This same 

judge indicated that, before the pandemic, only 25% of self-represented Divorce cases had all 

the documents necessary to proceed on their case at the originally scheduled hearing.  During 

the pandemic, the judge began providing forms for the litigants to complete before their remote 

court hearing, so on the day of the hearing the parties have a completed agreement before the 

hearing begins. Since this change was made, nearly 90% of the self-represented divorce litigants 

appear prepared and ready to resolve their cases. 

6 Technology delays occurred in 21% of remote hearings, compared to 3% of in-person hearings; delay time ranged from one to five

minutes, with an average of two minutes (p. 5).

7 A. Summers and S. Gatowski, Virtual Hearing Study—Utah (2021). The study collected data on 158 hearings from four judges and

included 80 remote hearings and 78 in-person hearings.
National Center for State Courts | 10

Judges across the board indicated that attendance at remote hearings for Civil and Family cases 

tends to be higher, reducing the number of default judgments that occur when one party does not 

appear for a hearing. A similar pattern of higher appearance rates was also noted for Criminal 

cases, with a consequent reduction in failures to appear (FTAs). 

Relatedly, especially in family-related cases, more parties (e.g., immediate and extended family 

members) often appear for remote hearings. Texas judges stated that a benefit of broader 

attendance is the opportunity to explain the hearing process and provide opportunities for all 

interested parties to be heard more fully. There is some anticipation that the increased participation 

will reduce post-judgment disputes. Of course, as more people participate in hearings, the length 

of the hearings will also increase, but the quality of those hearings is also likely improved. 

The Nevada CIP focus groups also found that the depth and breadth of discussion occurring in 

remote hearings was greater than that during in-person hearings, thus increasing the hearing 

length. The Nevada study noted that people who are less likely to attend an in-person court 

hearing, such as foster parents and kinship caregivers, are more likely to appear at remote 

proceedings because having a guaranteed login time is less disruptive to their schedules.

These findings echo a recently published report in which NCSC interviewed family court judges 

across the country.8 The judges indicated that parents attended remote hearings more frequently 

than in-person hearings, with the increase in participation attributed to “the convenience of not 

having to travel or find parking, not having to take time off from work, and the less intimidating 

atmosphere of the virtual courtroom.” Additionally, the report noted that incarcerated parents 

can participate in hearings more often due to the increased number of remote connections 

offered by jails and prisons and the elimination of transportation barriers. 

 

Of particular importance, the increased involvement of parties likely improves their perceptions 

of procedural fairness, as research has demonstrated that simply having a voice in a proceeding 

improves one’s experience of fairness.9 As noted by the UK Judicial College, “the process, rather 

than merely the result (of remote hearings) is a significant consideration in terms of the delivery 

of real justice. An individual is more likely to accept an adverse conclusion where it has been 

arrived at after a process which has been transparently just, where the needs of all have been 

considered, and where they have felt engaged in the process and the outcome is explained.”10

Such attention to enhanced procedural fairness has the benefit of better acceptance of court 

decisions, a more positive view of the courts, and greater compliance with court orders.

8 National Center for State Courts, Study of Virtual Child Welfare Hearings Impressions from Judicial Interviews, (June 2021), p. 2.

9 J. Bowers and P. H. Robinson, “Perceptions of Fairness and Justice: The Shared Aims and Occasional Conflicts of Legitimacy and

Moral Credibility,” Wake Forest Law Review 47 (2012): 47.

10 UK Judicial College, Good Practice for Remote Hearings, p. 1.
11 | The Use of Remote Hearings in Texas State Courts

Judges also reported that remote hearings are generally viewed positively by attorneys. These 

views are confirmed by a June 2020 survey of Texas attorneys conducted by the Texas Office of 

Court Administration that found over 73% of respondents indicated remote hearings are effective, 

with only 12% indicating they are ineffective. The focus group participants said attorney support 

is particularly strong for out-of-town counsel, or in larger counties where attorneys often must 

travel long distances to get to court. In addition, remote proceedings have made scheduling easier 

and avoided unnecessary delays, especially in uncontested matters, like case status updates.

This perspective is confirmed in a study conducted by the Berkeley Research Group (BRG) in the 

summer of 2021 on the psychological impacts of remote hearings on legal professionals. During 

interviews, the authors found that the experience of remote hearings on attorneys, arbitrators, 

and expert witnesses has been largely positive for all parties involved. Further, those interviewed 

indicated that there are many efficiencies (for legal professionals) to be gained by holding court 

hearings remotely, especially where it concerns the time and cost of travel associated with 

expert witnesses. This study also found that “the relaxed setting of familiar surroundings such 

as the home office has had a noticeable psychological impact on expert witnesses and placed 

them at ease, which in turn allows for more considerate answers to the benefit of the court.”11

Texas judges noted three additional benefits of remote hearings related to more efficient use 

of resources, including better managing limited courtroom space, reducing the need to travel 

to different courthouses, and improving utilization of scarce court reporters, interpreters, and 

pro bono legal representatives. As to the first two issues, when judges share courtrooms or 

must travel between court locations, their ability to schedule hearings is obviously limited to 

the days that judge is assigned to a specific courtroom. In many rural parts of Texas, judges 

travel between multiple courthouse locations to hold in-person proceedings. This style of riding 

circuit can mean a judge may only visit some locations every other week or even once a month, 

thereby reducing access. Since holding hearings remotely does not require the use of a physical 

courtroom, there is more flexibility in scheduling hearings, and proceedings can be held in a 

more timely fashion regardless of location. 

As to the third issue, judges reported the ability to use court reporters, interpreters, and pro bono 

lawyers who are not physically located in the courtroom because they can participate in the 

hearing via Zoom. This ability makes efficient use of scarce resources and further expands the 

ability to hold more hearings than if the participants were required to be in the same physical 

location as the judge. 

11 C. Bao, A. Masser, and S. Puchkov, The Psychological Impact of Remote Hearings (2021), p. 6.
National Center for State Courts | 12

3. Challenges of remote hearings for court users. 

As noted above, judges stated that technology-related issues are the primary source of longer 

hearing times for remote proceedings. Texas judges identified several technology problem areas 

in line with national patterns.12 A primary concern is the “digital divide,” or the issue that people 

may have uneven access to the technology needed to participate in remote hearings (e.g., lack of 

a computer or internet access). While judges reported that most litigants are able to participate 

in hearings via video and audio and in greater numbers than during in-person hearings due 

to other barriers, there remain litigants who experience access issues related to technology. 

Relatedly, litigants may have limited experience using online videoconferencing, causing delays 

in court proceedings. Trouble navigating the technology can deepen when inexperienced court 

users need to submit documents or use visual aids. Because the Texas judges believe remote 

hearings will remain a part of court practice going forward, they clearly recognize the need for 

ongoing attention to creative and inclusive solutions to access issues. 

Another concern voiced by some Texas judges is that remote hearings as currently operating 

may not make the best use of judicial time. One example is that the structure of remote hearings 

reduces some of the more informal discussions among opposing counsel that can occur with 

in-person hearings. Negotiations that occur before a hearing can clarify and sometimes resolve 

issues without direct judicial involvement. However, this opportunity is often lost with remote 

hearings, and some judges find they must expend time discussing these issues with the parties 

during the hearing itself. One judge relayed that she was holding a hearing on a divorce case, 

and that the parties agreed on all but one issue, which could have been resolved without judicial 

involvement before the hearing. Instead, she needed to negotiate the issue during the hearing, 

which unnecessarily increased the hearing time. Some judges indicated that they had remedied 

this issue by admitting lawyers and litigants to the virtual courtroom and placing them in 

“breakout rooms” that function similarly to in-person meeting space. 

Accessibility for non-English speakers during remote proceedings was another challenge, 

with several judges stating they had mixed levels of success with cases involving the need for 

interpreters. Some judges indicated that the interpreter function in Zoom is not ideal for courts 

and is difficult to use. One issue is that some parties in need of interpreter services lack access 

to the technology required to participate both visually and with audio. Another issue is that to 

use the interpreter function, all parties must be logged into the hearing through the Zoom app, as 

opposed to following a link to the hearing. If parties have not properly logged in to their remote 

hearing, the interpreter function is not available for parties who attend by phone only. 

12 See https://www.ncsc.org/newsroom/public-health-emergency/pandemic-and-the-courts-resources for a variety of resources

created by NCSC and the CCJ-COSCA Rapid Response Team (RRT) to help state courts deal with challenges presented by the pandemic.
13 | The Use of Remote Hearings in Texas State Courts

Further concerns expressed by Texas judges on this topic revolve around accommodating interpreter 

breaks during remote hearings. To preserve quality, interpreters need substantial breaks every 30-

40 minutes. When problems occur, interpreters must spend part of their limited time helping their 

client resolve technology issues, reducing the time available for the hearing itself. 

As the above examples illustrate, whether the specific issue is litigant access to technology, 

interaction between attorneys, or coordination with interpreters, the larger challenge of “prehearing preparation” remains a primary concern for remote hearings. Not surprisingly, a central 

theme among Texas judges is the need for greater attention to improving the efficiency of 

remote hearings, with the goals of better using judicial officer time, preserving access to justice, 

accommodating the needs of litigants, and overcoming obstacles to equal participation. One 

suggestion is using some form of preliminary contact (e.g., phone call, text message) between 

court staff and parties to learn about special needs in advance of the remote hearing, explain the 

process to be used, and point to existing resources developed by the court to facilitate meaningful 

participation. This approach has been used effectively in the United Kingdom, where court staff 

schedule pre-hearing conferences with the litigants or counsel in the days before the hearing.

4. Hearing types best suited for remote hearings. 

Judges were asked whether there are certain types of cases or types of hearings that are more 

or less suited to the use of remote hearings. One theme was the essential need for judges to be 

able to conduct certain types of cases remotely if courts are closed or severely limited in their 

in-person proceedings. These are cases related to personal liberty or personal safety, such as 

bail hearings, domestic violence cases, or emergency child custody matters. 

As courts move beyond mandatory COVID closures, the focus groups identified proceedings that 

remain amenable to remote hearing technology and procedures. Texas judges agreed that the 

type of case is less relevant than the type of hearing—in most instances. Generally speaking, 

remote hearings function most effectively with short hearings that are limited in scope, such 

as setting of trial dates, status hearings, permanency hearings, discovery hearings, motions 

hearings of various types, summary judgments, self-represented divorce dockets (especially 

when parties have completed agreements), and non-evidentiary or non-witness cases. 

Additionally, in terms of case types that work well for remote dockets, judges indicated the type of 

matters that affect people’s ability to get on with their lives, such as many Probate proceedings, 

Child Protective Services, and other Family law cases. 

Though jury trials have successfully been conducted remotely in Texas, and it is reported that jurors 

especially like this format, the collective view among focus group participants is that jury trials are 

more effectively held in-person. Similarly, problem-solving courts, such as drug courts, are better 

suited to in-person hearings, though some have been handled remotely during the past 18 months. 
National Center for State Courts | 14

Several judges indicated that it is not necessarily the type of hearing or the type of case that 

matters when determining whether to hold a hearing in-person or remotely; sometimes, the 

nature of the case or the makeup of the parties determines the most appropriate platform. For 

example, one judge who hears Child Protective Service cases argued that she often triages 

families’ needs by having service providers available in the courtroom to address the needs of 

family members, such as substance abuse or mental health needs. While these professionals 

can be scheduled to attend a remote hearing, not having them physically present limits their 

ability to provide immediate assistance. Another judge relayed an incident in which a family 

member was yelling profanities during a remote hearing, and it was easier to mute that person 

remotely than to physically remove them from the courtroom. 

Overall, the focus groups were supportive of Texas judicial leadership developing guidelines 

clarifying the types of hearings that would presumptively be held remotely. This approach 

would encourage general uniformity in practice throughout the state. However, as noted in the 

examples above, the judges would also like to preserve some discretion in selecting the type of 

venue to best address the needs and circumstances of particular litigants. 

5. Impact of remote hearings on judicial stress.

Across the three focus groups, the consensus is that remote proceedings will continue for the 

foreseeable future. Currently, most Texas judges are responsible for all or most aspects of remote 

hearings, including setting up links, addressing technical issues, teaching parties how to use the 

hearing platform, and ensuring control of the hearings. Judges reported feeling more exhausted 

when conducting remote hearings. As one judge indicated, “I definitely get more exhausted by doing 

virtual hearings. As a judge, I am constantly on; but my performance and focus is just different. 

Holding remote hearings all day is very exhausting physically. But there is a perception that people 

need to see and feel they have had their day in court and that they are getting what they paid for.”

A related factor is the ease of more tightly scheduling remote hearings. The move to remote 

hearings has changed court-scheduling practices in important ways. In the past, many courts 

would schedule a morning and afternoon in-person docket for a set number of hours. The judge 

would handle all matters scheduled for each block of time. Typically, gaps would appear during 

the session (e.g., party non-appearance), and the judge would get a series of short breaks during 

the day. With remote proceedings, many courts have moved to tighter scheduling of individual 

matters in 15- or 30-minute time-certain “appointments” (similar to a doctor’s office). Many 

Texas judges report they now have a more individualized and tightly structured daily calendar 

than in the past, with the associated cost of fewer breaks throughout the day. They also note 

that the ease of virtual appearance in remote hearings makes it easier to quickly fill gaps in a 

daily docket that might emerge if a previously scheduled matter is postponed. 
15 | The Use of Remote Hearings in Texas State Courts

Of course, the converse to more individualized scheduling is greater convenience for litigants 

and attorneys. Rather than sitting through a three-hour morning docket waiting for their case to 

be called, a specific time slot means court users can more easily plan their day. For this reason, 

there will be interest in maintaining these new scheduling practices, making it incumbent on 

judges to adjust mentally and physically to new ways of doing business. A recent AJA white 

paper discusses the importance of mindfulness in judicial decision making and how that 

can affect procedural justice.13 While this paper focused on in-person proceedings, the same 

concepts apply to dealing with “Zoom fatigue.” The stressors noted by Texas judges make the 

practice of mindfulness and self-care especially important during remote hearings. The use of 

decision aids or checklists is presented as a simple, yet effective, tool that can be used to be 

more mindful. 

Implications of Findings and Recommendations

This exploratory study has revealed there are both benefits and challenges associated with 

the current case-processing practices used in handling hearings remotely. Driven largely 

by technology-related issues, the time study data collected from participating Texas judges 

show that remote pretrial hearings take an average of about 34% longer than similar in-person 

hearings. The need for ongoing attention to reducing technology problems was a recurrent 

theme during the Texas focus groups, one corroborated by other recent studies conducted in 

Nevada and Utah. 

A primary benefit of remote hearings is the opportunity to significantly improve the court 

experience for court users in select types of hearings and cases. As noted, remote hearings 

are often more convenient because they allow for more time-certain scheduling and reduce 

obstacles to attending, such as transportation, childcare, and work schedules. By improving the 

court experience, the perception and reality is that the quality of justice is improved. 

According to most judges and attorneys interviewed and surveyed across a variety of studies 

conducted since the pandemic began, remote hearings will be an ongoing reality in courts 

across the country. Aside from technological concerns, courts will need to continue to address 

other challenges with pre-hearing preparation associated with the swift move to remote 

practices. Texas judges noted a major focus in court administration is continuing attention to 

improving the efficiency of remote hearings, including better using judicial officer time, improved 

scheduling and notice of remote proceedings, and workable methods to respond to individual 

users’ questions. 

13 P. Casey, K. Burke, and S. Leben, “Minding the Court: Enhancing the Decision-Making Process,” International Journal for Court 

Administration 5, no. 1 (2013): 45–54. DOI: http://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.8.
National Center for State Courts | 16

If the reliance on remote hearings is expected to be a reality for courts going forward, there 

is an unquestioned need for additional research to provide guidance to courts regarding how 

to make the process more efficient and effective for all participants, including judges. While 

some court administrators and individual judges have found ways to improve the process of 

conducting remote hearings, many of the topics covered in this exploratory analysis deserve 

further investigation, including: 

•	 Which hearing types best lend themselves to being conducted remotely?

•	 Are there specific case types that are more efficiently and effectively conducted remotely? 

•	 Are there best practices that contribute to more effective remote hearings?

•	 What can be done to decrease judicial burnout resulting from conducting virtual hearings? 

•	 What are the experiences of court users, such as litigants, families, attorneys, and expert 

witnesses, participating in remote hearings?

•	 What technological assistance should be available to judges and court staff to ensure 

seamless remote hearings?
17 | The Use of Remote Hearings in Texas State Courts

Recommendations

1. State and local judicial leadership should generate guidelines for determining when a court 

proceeding should be conducted in-person or remotely. These guidelines should include the 

type of docket, the subject matter of the hearing, the parties who will appear at the proceeding, 

and the potential legal consequences of the final adjudicative decision. For example, traffic 

dockets, in which a large volume of cases are likely to be heard, may lend themselves well 

to remote hearings; conversely, cases involving jailable offenses, evidentiary material, 

or criminal jury trials might be better heard in trial court. Judges also indicated that the 

personalities involved, or specific litigant situations, might also affect the decision regarding 

in-person versus remote hearings. For example, in a divorce case in which the parties are not 

amicable, it might be more effective to hold the hearing remotely.

2. Court systems and judges should determine the most effective way to schedule hearings 

that provide for the greatest efficiency in the court, while also being mindful of litigants’ time. 

Court users should be able to expect similar experiences across courtrooms, so scheduling 

considerations should be determined consistently.
National Center for State Courts | 18

3. Remote court participants will benefit from clearly delineated instructions and expectations 

for their hearings. Not all court participants may have the necessary reading skills to 

comprehend the information, so this information should be provided through multiple media, 

including in writing and through video, such as YouTube. A survey conducted in Australia 

indicated that there were several aspects of the court experience that could be improved. 

More than a quarter of court users wanted to be better informed about when their matter 

would start and how long it would take. They wanted to understand what was expected of 

them and what the next steps would be.14 In the UK, some courts are also contacting the 

parties before their court hearing to ensure that they understand how to log into the hearing, 

how to navigate the platform in which the hearing is being conducted, what the hearing will 

entail, what is expected of them, what documents they will need to have and in what format, 

and any additional information they need for the hearing, so that they have an opportunity 

to have any questions answered.15 The documentation should include basic steps of how to 

connect to the platform, individual identifiers that are required, and the mechanics of using 

the platform’s software. 

4. Court systems should develop clear instructions for remote proceedings on courtroom 

decorum and expectations of litigants, including timeliness, dress code, and appropriate 

places from which to log into a hearing. The instructions should be made available in both 

written and video format, and they could even include a checklist of items to address. Courts 

should also develop workable methods to respond to individual users’ questions.

5. Before any hearing, the court should ensure that all required paperwork and agreements 

between parties have been appropriately completed. For example, if couples seeking a divorce 

are expected to attend the hearing with completed agreement documents, this should be 

clearly communicated before the hearing; if completed documents are not provided to the 

court by a date certain, the hearing should not be held. Courts should explore technology 

platforms that simplify this experience.

6. Courts should not assume that all parties have access to the proper equipment (computers, 

tablets, smart phones) allowing them to participate in remotely held court proceedings. 

Similarly, courts should consider the technical expertise of parties before scheduling remote 

hearings. All courts should provide safe and easily accessible computer systems for court 

users to attend remote hearings.

14 From Court User Satisfaction Survey, Family Court of Australia, Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Richard Foster, Chief Executive

Officer, 2014, https://www.courtexcellence.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/6093/user-satisfaction-survey.pdf)

15 Personal experience by David Slayton, Vice President of the NCSC Court Consulting Division, based on consulting experience in

the UK.
19 | The Use of Remote Hearings in Texas State Courts

7. When interpreters are used, the court should ensure that the non-English-speaking litigant’s 

attorney has briefed the interpreter on the case and how to use the communication system. 

The court should ensure that all parties know how to log in to the system (for example, in 

Zoom, they need to be on a certain channel).

8. Court systems should find ways to preempt judicial burnout arising from holding 

consecutive remote hearings. Judges should be encouraged to take regular breaks during 

and between hearings. 

9. Since remote hearings appear to be a permanent part of the justice system, court systems 

should consider hiring “technical bailiffs” or other court staff. These positions would be 

responsible for setting hearing links, scheduling parties, and addressing technical issues that 

arise during remote hearings. These positions could also be responsible for communicating 

with parties before the hearings to ensure that everyone knows what to expect during their 

hearings, has all the proper documentation available for the hearings, and has an opportunity 

to have any questions answered.
National Center for State Courts | 20

Appendices
21 | The Use of Remote Hearings in Texas State Courts

Appendix A: Texas Remote Hearing Study Case 

Type Categories 

1. Felony Group A – Murder, homicide, attempted murder, assaultive offenses (Ch. 22, Penal 

Code), aggravated robbery/robbery, indecency with or sexual assault of a child, family 

violence assault.

2. Felony Group B – Automobile theft, burglary, drug sale or manufacture, drug possession, 

felony DWI, theft, all other felonies. 

3. Misdemeanor – All misdemeanors, including DWI first or second offense, theft, theft 

by check or similar sight order, possession of marijuana or other drugs, family violence 

assault, other assault, traffic offenses, SWLS/DWLI, other misdemeanors.

4. Injury or Damage Involving Vehicle – Injury or damage involving a motor vehicle.

5. Injury or Damage – Other than Vehicle – Injury or damage other than from a vehicle, 

malpractice, and product liability.

6. Contract – Other – Accounts, consumer/commercial debt, contracts, and notes.

7. Other Civil – Tax cases, condemnation, civil cases relating to criminal matters, other civil 

cases, real property, administrative law, and government cases.

8. Divorce – Divorce with children, divorce without children.

9. Other Family Law Matters – IV-D Paternity, IV-D support order established, parent-child 

– no divorce, protective orders, non-divorce family cases, other family matters.

10. Modifications and Enforcements – Modifications and enforcements related to custody 

or other matters.

11. Delinquency – Juvenile delinquency cases.

12. Child Protective Services – Child protective services cases.
National Center for State Courts | 22

Appendix B: Texas Remote Hearing Study 

Case-Related Activity Categories 

and Definitions

1. Pre-Disposition/Non-Trial Disposition: In Court – Includes all IN COURT on-bench and 

off-bench activity related to pretrial proceedings and non-trial dispositions. In probate 

cases, includes uncontested proceedings to appoint a fiduciary or to order supervision 

of a trust. Includes all off-bench research and preparation related to pre-disposition and 

non-trial disposition activities. 

2. Pre-Disposition/Non-Trial Disposition: Remote – Includes all REMOTE on-bench and 

off-bench activity related to pretrial proceedings and non-trial dispositions. In probate 

cases, includes uncontested proceedings to appoint a fiduciary or to order supervision 

of a trust. Includes all off-bench research and preparation related to pre-disposition and 

non-trial disposition activities. This also includes time required to set up links, establish 

communication, etc.

3. Bench Trial: In Person – includes all IN-PERSON bench trial activity, including:

•	 Bench trial: counted as a trial when the case is called (includes all time related to 

in-trial activities). Includes criminal trials, civil trials, contested divorces, contested 

adjudicatory or disposition hearings in juvenile cases, contested probate matters, etc.;

•	 Any work by the judicial officer related to research, case review, writing findings of 

fact and conclusions of law on specific cases that have gone to trial is counted; and

•	 Sentencing hearing following trial.

4. Bench Trial: Remote – includes all REMOTELY CONDUCTED bench trial activity, including:

•	 Bench trial: counted as a trial when the case is called (includes all time related to 

in-trial activities). Includes criminal trials, civil trials, contested divorces, contested 

adjudicatory and/or disposition hearings in juvenile cases, contested probate 

matters, etc.;

•	 Any work by the judicial officer related to research, case review, writing findings of 

fact and conclusions of law on specific cases that have gone to trial is counted; 

•	 Sentencing hearing following trial; and

•	 Time required to set up for trial.
23 | The Use of Remote Hearings in Texas State Courts

5. Jury Trial: In Person – Includes all IN-PERSON on-bench and off-bench activity related to 

a bench or jury trial or another contested proceeding that disposes of the original petition 

in the case. In probate cases, includes contested proceedings to appoint a fiduciary or 

to order supervision of a trust. Includes all off-bench research and preparation related 

to trials. Includes sentencing following a bench or jury trial. Some examples of trial 

activities include:

•	 Jury trial: counted as a trial when a jury is empaneled. Includes jury selection, 

arguments and evidence, jury deliberation, jury polling, announcement of verdict; 

•	 Any work by the judicial officer related to research, case review, writing findings of 

fact and conclusions of law on specific cases that have gone to trial is counted; and

•	 Sentencing hearing following trial.

6. Jury Trial: Remote – Includes all REMOTELY CONDUCTED on-bench and off-bench 

activity related to a bench or jury trial or another contested proceeding that disposes 

of the original petition in the case. In probate cases, includes contested proceedings to 

appoint a fiduciary or to order supervision of a trust. Includes all off-bench research and 

preparation related to trials. Includes sentencing following a bench or jury trial. Some 

examples of trial activities include:

•	 Jury trial: counted as a trial when a jury is empaneled. Includes jury selection, 

arguments and evidence, jury deliberation, jury polling, announcement of verdict; 

•	 Any work by the judicial officer related to research, case review, writing findings of fact 

and conclusions of law on specific cases that have gone to trial is counted;Sentencing 

hearing following trial; and

•	 Scheduling and technical set-up.

7. Post-Disposition Activities: In Person – Includes all IN-PERSON on-bench and offbench activity that occurs after the entry of judgment on the original petition in the case. 

In probate cases, includes all activity after a fiduciary is appointed or trust supervision 

is ordered. Includes all off-bench research and preparation related to post-disposition 

activity. Does not include trials de novo.

8. Post-Disposition Activities: Remote – Includes all REMOTELY CONDUCTED activity that 

occurs after the entry of judgment on the original petition in the case. In probate cases, 

includes all activity after a fiduciary is appointed or trust supervision is ordered. Includes 

all off-bench research and preparation related to post-disposition activity. Does not 

include trials de novo.
National Center for State Courts | 24

Appendix C: Texas Remote Hearing Study 

Non-Case-Related Activity Categories 

and Definitions

a. Non-Case-Related Administration

Includes all non-case-related administrative work such as:

•	 Staff meetings

•	 Judges’ meetings

•	 Personnel matters

•	 Staff supervision and mentoring

•	 Court management

b. General Legal Research

Includes all reading and research that is not related to a particular case before the court. 

Examples include:

•	 Reading journals

•	 Reading professional newsletters

•	 Reviewing appellate court decisions

c. Judicial Education and Training

Includes all educational and training activities such as:

•	 Judicial education

•	 Conferences 

Includes travel related to judicial education and training.

d. Committee Meetings, Other Meetings, and Related Work

Includes all work related to and preparation for meetings of state and local committees, 

boards, and task forces, such as:

•	 Community criminal justice board meetings

•	 Bench book committee meetings

•	 Other court-related committee meetings

Includes travel related to meetings.
25 | The Use of Remote Hearings in Texas State Courts

e. Community Activities and Public Outreach

Includes all public outreach and community service that is performed in your official capacity 

as a judge. This category does not include work for which you are compensated through an 

outside source, such as teaching law school courses, or personal community service work 

that is not performed in your official capacity as a judge. 

Examples of work-related community activities and public outreach include:

•	 Speaking at schools about legal careers

•	 Judging moot court competitions

Includes travel related to community activities and public outreach.

f. Work-Related Travel

Includes only travel between courts during the business day. Time is calculated from the 

primary office location as determined by the Texas Supreme Court to the visited court. 

Do not include commuting time from your home to your primary office location. Record 

travel time from your primary office location to judicial education and training, committee 

meetings, or community activities and public outreach in the applicable category. This is an 

account of minutes spent on travel only.

g. Vacation, Sick Leave, and Holidays

Includes all time away from work due to vacation, personal leave, illness or medical leave, 

and court holidays.

h. Lunch and Breaks

Includes all routine breaks during the working day.

i. Non-Case-Related Specialty Court Activity

Includes all work related to specialty courts that does not include meeting in-person or 

remotely with specialty court participants.

j. Technology-Related Work/Issues

Includes all time spent addressing technology-related issues that do not involve litigants.

k. NCSC Time Study

Includes all time spent filling out time study forms and entering time study data using the 

Web-based form.

ncsc.org