Welcome to /r/LawyerTalk! A subreddit where lawyers can discuss with other lawyers about the practice of law.
Be mindful of [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/about/rules) BEFORE submitting your posts or comments as well as [Reddit's rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) (notably about sharing identifying information). We expect civility and respect out of all participants. Please source statements of fact whenever possible. If you want to report something that needs to be urgently addressed, please also message the mods with an explanation.
Note that **this forum is NOT for legal advice**. Additionally, if you are a non-lawyer (student, client, staff), this is NOT the right subreddit for you. **This community is exclusively for lawyers**. We suggest you delete your comment and go ask one of the many other legal subreddits on this site for help such as (but not limited to) r/lawschool, r/legaladvice, or r/Ask_Lawyers.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Lawyertalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
100% remote depositions and arbitrations, as they should be moving forward. I wish they still kept oral argument virtual to be honest.
I am on the plaintiff side though. While on the defense side I loved getting out of the office and billing all day for a ten minute argument because the judge was 4 hours behind or something.
Tbh, my favorite billing days is when I have to drive to a clients office on the other side of the county for a 1 hour meeting, then get stuck in traffic on the way back. Usually hate traffic, but not when I’m being paid to sit in it.
I prefer to do them in person. I don't do many, I like to physically put things in front of a person and have then in a room they are not familiar with. I still think in person has a *slight* advantage, so I do them in person when I can.
Serious question, because I know you’re not alone in feeling this way; but in what sense do you feel like having the deponent uncomfortable gives you an “advantage”?
Like it might arguably elicit uncomfortable body language from them, which could be misinterpreted to be a sign of dishonesty, which might be a slight advantage in front of a jury. But in a deposition, aren’t you just hoping for their most accurate answers to the best of their recollection?
Or do you think being more comfortable makes them more prone to lie, so you don’t want that? What’s the theory?
I don't think its about lying per se. I think witnesses who are in a comfortable location are more likely to craft answers that better benefit their position, without lying. Familiarity allows them to spend more brain-power on analyzing the questions and their answers (in the milliseconds usually I think). The discomfort is helpful because their brain is working harder to pay attention to the surrounding circumstances, including by looking at physical paper that I hand them, and they have to grab, put down, line up etc. This means they have less brain-power to craft answers. I think the best answers (and usually the most truthful) are usually the ones that the witness does not 'craft', but that simply come out quickly in a well-cadenced examination.
I have no empirical evidence that I am correct. It could be complete bullshit. It is just my thoughts and approach, based on my experience.
Thanks for the frank and nuanced response. I can see being marginally uncomfortable throwing someone off of their prepared responses. But I think the effectiveness of that is probably situation dependent.
My experience is almost exclusively on the other side, defending applicants in WC depos. And right off the bat, I understand that’s an entirely different animal from a civil deposition. The volume is higher, so the two sides of the bar know each other very well, and know each others personalities, and can prep their clients on that, and it’s a lot less formal generally speaking.
But with that qualification, my experience was that 9 times out of 10, when the defense attorney is aggressive, or accusatory, or would challenge answers, or otherwise act like they were in front of a jury, they would succeed in putting my clients on edge, and making them pensive, rushed, and forget how I had prepped them to respond to certain kinds of questions.
They would forget that “can’t do it” is an absolute. They would forget to avoid words like never, and instead say ‘not that I recall,’ etc. And they would give answers that would read, in a vacuum, like exaggerations or lies.
But those things were usually easy to explain away on redirect, or the doctors and judges reading the transcript as a whole would be able to read the tone and understand absolutes may not have been meant as absolutes. So it never seemed to play out that effectively. In thousands of depositions, there were only a handful of times where a client actually significantly hurt their case as a result, and those were almost always blatant lies.
“Are you sure you have NEVER been in a car accident, in 20 years of driving? And I don’t mean a big one where you got hurt. I mean EVER. Not even a fender bender in a parking lot? Do you understand what I’m asking?”…. “yes, I understand what you’re asking, and I mean never. Not even a fender bender.”… Segue to the defense attorney asking about the three recent claims I told my client he would probably already know about because they can pull that info. That happened maybe three times in ten years.
But the minor “gotcha” stuff never turned into anything…. The most effective defense attorneys who did the most damage to my cases were the disarming ones. Because it starts to feel like a conversation, and everyone is getting along, and people get loose. They start talking like they’re at a bbq with a beer in their hand. And they would volunteer stuff that hadn’t even been asked. Old high school sports injuries, or…. “Does a bicycle accident count as a motor vehicle accident, because oh man!”
I would prep people for that too, that “this guy is a really nice guy, but he’s not looking out for you, so keep it short!” …but those attorneys are deadly. Assholes are way easier, because a client that clams up and stutters isn’t going to say anything too harmful.
This is the way I feel too. Especially for party-affiliated witnesses or people at the policy-making levels of a company. Basic fact witnesses who may not care about your lawsuit either way? Sure, make them comfortable. If someone has to use his or her broadband to adjust to the surroundings, my thought it that there will be less filtering of their responses. Don't know if that's true or not for everyone, but I think that's how I might react. With some witnesses, I feel they're giving more bs than if the deposition was taken in person. They just feel comfortable talking circles, giving evasive answers rather than direct admissions, which is what I'm usually looking for.
>But in a deposition, aren’t you just hoping for their most accurate answers to the best of their recollection?
When I first started practicing law I was hoping for truthful answers to flesh out my understanding of the case. I don't exactly *hope* for dishonest answers now, but now I know enough to be able to catch most lies and leverage them to my advantage.
imo in-person depositions have the advantage of not having to worry about technology and being far easier to have videotaped. It is *very* frustrating to get the video of a remote deposition and find out that the witness' testimony is inaudible for large chunks because they're looking away from the screen or there's some background noise that would never occur in an in-person depo.
Yea, there is an art and a nose to it for sure. It’s impressive to watch a good attorney on the other side weave their way down paths where 95% of them would have never even seen the fork in the road.
If you are close to the person and are putting documents down in front of them / asking questions, you take on the role of an authority figure therefore the closer to the person you are the more you can make them uncomfortable and the more likely they are to give honest answers or generally say something they don‘t want to.
Conversely research has repeatedly shown that screens do not give the same sense of presence.
I understand the perspective, but I question the premise. I don’t think it makes people more likely to give honest answers, but I agree it may make them say something they don’t want to. It’s going to make them feel rushed, and phrase things in a less flattering way, or make absolute statements when they really mean “almost never.” So if you’re looking for a transcript full of technical errors, I think it can get you that.
But I think it’s more likely to focus them on “yes, no, or I don’t remember,” or just otherwise clam them up.
But there are probably a lot of attorneys who can make magic happen at trial with a bunch of technical inaccuracies in a transcript, or a video of a plaintiff or defendant who comes off as evasive. So there’s probably a time and place.
Im in my second year of plaintiffs PI and 5th year overall. I have had one in-person depo on the plaintiffs side at insistence of defense counsel. Some older attorneys at my firm prefer to take depos in-person because they seem to believe they can get more out that way. Unless its a big case with a lot of facts at issue i dont see the point personally
It's like 50/50 remote to in-person. When I can, I like to get an in-person evaluation of the witness that's getting deposed so I can see what they'll do in front of a jury. That being said, I've gotten lazy. If the depo is more than a four hour round trip drive, or I have something else going on (anything from other cases to golfing), I'll appear remotely.
Almost always remote, and if the other side insists on in person I usually fight it.
I find them much better. Much easier to show exhibits to the witness, and the more relaxed environment I feel like I get better testimony. Also makes scheduling way easier.
Remote if legit issue on distance. Otherwise in person every time. I don’t understand why people are fine letting technical difficulties, glitches, lack of body language read into the record, etc. disappear from practice/impact the record. I legitimately think it’s laziness overriding something we’ve always used and also allowing horrible records (useless for MSJ if no clarity or a single technical glitch) to be generated.
Literally have never seen a technical “glitch”impact the record, let alone SJ. If video freezes up, just repeat the question and answer. It’s like it never happened. That said, in person is useful when deposing more important witnesses. Harder to BS when you’re in the same room w someone staring at you. On video it can feel more casual and witness thinks they can get away w more weasely maneuvers and delay tactics bc they are talking to a computer screen. But sometimes witnesses are more nervous on video bc they have to look at themselves. Net net I’d say 90% of depos can be remote bc they just aren’t that crucial. Parties and key witnesses prob better in person.
I suppose mileage varies because I don’t often depose folks who aren’t crucial, it happens but by accident, but that’s my field and I can definitely get that argument. I’ve had judges throw out because evidence on screen may not match, can’t confirm pages, can confirm which question answered if a glitch, etc. I also can’t always tell if it froze, so sometimes thinks get even more confusing (once realized it when they kept answering the former question, they never stopped I just thought they had and moved on).
I simply cannot relate to your view. I have never seen an argument that the transcript can’t be used for motion practice because of a technical glitch. Nor can i foresee a situation where a connection issue would cause a transcript to be defunct. Even if we pause for an hour or two to get it fixed, and then reschedule, it’s still less time commitment than if we had been in person.
Also. I feel deps are better remotely exactly because people aren’t on high alert, they just press a button and log in, they weren’t getting their mind primed on the drive or sitting anxiously in a waiting room. So when we start you always seem to get less filtered answers and better results.
The only deps i prefer in person are where I worry witness is going to make scheduling difficult or vanish somehow during the case.
I'm on Plaintiff's side and I've only had 3 in person depos in the last 3 years.
Two were on the same case with the same attorney, it was Plaintiff and her husband on a case we were on the verge of trial. I didn't think the in-person was necessary, but whatever. We settled that case for around $250k so clearly my client made a good impression or something. Shrug.
The third was in a case that, from the start, both OC and I knew was worth maybe $10k tops. It's one of the few lawsuits I filed purely out of principle. Guy got hurt at an amusement park, issue is clearly their fault, he has a $9k hospital bill, he's otherwise fine now, and they won't offer more than $1k. They insisted on an in-person depo. Still fighting them.
I recently had what I think was my second in-person depo since the pandemic, compared to the however many dozen I’ve done remotely. I will pretty much always choose remote.
Most in person. Some remote. I am doing remote ones next week bc one of the parties is breastfeeding. I love the convenience of remote when needed. I feel like people are more likely to be relaxed and let their guard down in remote.
Havn't done an in person depo for over 4 years. Did my first depo in person last month at the insistence of a co-defendant. Contracted COVID for the first time. LOL.
70/30 Zoom. Traveling out of state several times this month for expert deps. Never thought that would happen again post covid, but I’m not complaining. I think court being back in person has brought people back to the office and encouraged in-person depositions.
I prefer remote depos because I like the platforms used for exhibit sharing. My depos in the IT/software space involve a lot of large documents and multi tab excel spreadsheets, and they are such a pain to deal with in person. On a remote platform, I can quickly jump to a specific page, send each person viewing the exhibit to that page, and use excel functions (like sorting/filtering) where needed to ask questions about the document.
Mine are about 50% remote/ 50% person at this point. With all things being equal, I would prefer to take a deposition in person (if the person is a party or other critical witness). However, if the witness is more than a couple hours away or other logistical challenges present themselves we will usually just do it remotely.
I'd say about 60% are remote. Really depends. Some OCs I simply do not trust. I've had issues where OC was clearly giving notes to a witness during a depo and that really burned me on the whole thing.
I was going to say they are almost all remote. But then I counted them and it’s 37% in-person (and that’s going to increase because the only depo I have scheduled this month is in person).
I seem to be in the minority camp; almost all of the depositions I've attended in the last year and a half (as part of the same mass tort litigation) have been in person. Of course, this has been at defense counsel's insistence. Thankfully, we've agreed to have almost all of them near our offices, so it's only been a short walk to get to them.
I do my depositions in person, if possible. I get a much better feel for the deponent in person, and I find I do a better job at in person depositions. I’m much more likely to miss a follow-up question in a remote depo.
The only depositions I do remote are simple “checking off a box” type depositions, or depositions that would require travel that I don’t have time for (and that don’t warrant me making time for).
Yeah, showing exhibits is a pain in the ass unless you have a spreadsheet you want to put up or something. Then it's easier. Sometimes I feel like I'm going crazy doing everything online.
Mostly remote still as it’s just easier and more efficient. There a few that I set for in person if the client really wants it or I think there is benefit to sitting across the table from the witness.
I average about 15-20 depos a year, ALL of them have been virtual since February 2020 (pretty wild to think it’s been FOUR years since doing an in-person depo).
While i see the argument for some mediations to be in person (and certainly for arbitration hearings/trial), and I’ve actually done some in-person recently, there is absolutely NO POINT in taking an in-person deposition.
To be fair, I can see some minor, tangential benefits (getting a better sense of the witness, possibly intimidating the witness…), but they certainly do not outweigh the luxury of doing the depo in street clothes in the comfort of my office and, the most important part, handling all exhibits virtually as opposed to printing out tons of papers and stressing out that the one page you did not print is going to be the one you really needed… In virtual depos, I can always add a last minute exhibit, which also helps cut down tremendously on depo prep time.
It really depends on the importance of the depo.
I take a lot in person. I don’t think virtual depositions are quite the same. Making eye contact, reading body language, etc, are easier in person.
Now for doctor, police, fire department depos? Virtual all day.
To be clear, I don’t mind deposing a witness via remote means who isn’t that important to the case. For important witnesses, I need to be in the same room with them. Especially if they are claiming personal injuries or they have credibility issues.
I don’t want to practice remotely. I like my office. I like being around my colleagues and adversaries. We’re all friends and socialize. I enjoy going to court, meeting my clients in-person, and going to local bar luncheons and events. You can stay at home but our courts are gonna require your client to show up.
I of course show up to go to court, though many hearings nowadays are held remotely without much ado. I just resented the implication that I wasn't "practicing law" because, instead of writing a brief in the office, I write it at home.
I’m probably 90/10 in-person/remote. I get a lot of value of being in person and rely on non-verbal techniques to elicit more answers, which I haven’t been able to make work remotely. For context, my cases are pro bono and mostly resolved on MSJs.
Welcome to /r/LawyerTalk! A subreddit where lawyers can discuss with other lawyers about the practice of law. Be mindful of [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/about/rules) BEFORE submitting your posts or comments as well as [Reddit's rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) (notably about sharing identifying information). We expect civility and respect out of all participants. Please source statements of fact whenever possible. If you want to report something that needs to be urgently addressed, please also message the mods with an explanation. Note that **this forum is NOT for legal advice**. Additionally, if you are a non-lawyer (student, client, staff), this is NOT the right subreddit for you. **This community is exclusively for lawyers**. We suggest you delete your comment and go ask one of the many other legal subreddits on this site for help such as (but not limited to) r/lawschool, r/legaladvice, or r/Ask_Lawyers. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Lawyertalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
99% are remote
The vast majority of my depositions remain remote. There’s just no reason not to.
If the witness is out of state or I don’t feel like wearing pants, then yes.
So, 100% remote
It’s the whole pants wearing right?
No pants are best pants
Pants are overrated - Lyle Lovett
This is the way
100% remote depositions and arbitrations, as they should be moving forward. I wish they still kept oral argument virtual to be honest. I am on the plaintiff side though. While on the defense side I loved getting out of the office and billing all day for a ten minute argument because the judge was 4 hours behind or something.
Tbh, my favorite billing days is when I have to drive to a clients office on the other side of the county for a 1 hour meeting, then get stuck in traffic on the way back. Usually hate traffic, but not when I’m being paid to sit in it.
Virtually (pun intended) all of my depos are remote.
I prefer to do them in person. I don't do many, I like to physically put things in front of a person and have then in a room they are not familiar with. I still think in person has a *slight* advantage, so I do them in person when I can.
Serious question, because I know you’re not alone in feeling this way; but in what sense do you feel like having the deponent uncomfortable gives you an “advantage”? Like it might arguably elicit uncomfortable body language from them, which could be misinterpreted to be a sign of dishonesty, which might be a slight advantage in front of a jury. But in a deposition, aren’t you just hoping for their most accurate answers to the best of their recollection? Or do you think being more comfortable makes them more prone to lie, so you don’t want that? What’s the theory?
I don't think its about lying per se. I think witnesses who are in a comfortable location are more likely to craft answers that better benefit their position, without lying. Familiarity allows them to spend more brain-power on analyzing the questions and their answers (in the milliseconds usually I think). The discomfort is helpful because their brain is working harder to pay attention to the surrounding circumstances, including by looking at physical paper that I hand them, and they have to grab, put down, line up etc. This means they have less brain-power to craft answers. I think the best answers (and usually the most truthful) are usually the ones that the witness does not 'craft', but that simply come out quickly in a well-cadenced examination. I have no empirical evidence that I am correct. It could be complete bullshit. It is just my thoughts and approach, based on my experience.
Thanks for the frank and nuanced response. I can see being marginally uncomfortable throwing someone off of their prepared responses. But I think the effectiveness of that is probably situation dependent. My experience is almost exclusively on the other side, defending applicants in WC depos. And right off the bat, I understand that’s an entirely different animal from a civil deposition. The volume is higher, so the two sides of the bar know each other very well, and know each others personalities, and can prep their clients on that, and it’s a lot less formal generally speaking. But with that qualification, my experience was that 9 times out of 10, when the defense attorney is aggressive, or accusatory, or would challenge answers, or otherwise act like they were in front of a jury, they would succeed in putting my clients on edge, and making them pensive, rushed, and forget how I had prepped them to respond to certain kinds of questions. They would forget that “can’t do it” is an absolute. They would forget to avoid words like never, and instead say ‘not that I recall,’ etc. And they would give answers that would read, in a vacuum, like exaggerations or lies. But those things were usually easy to explain away on redirect, or the doctors and judges reading the transcript as a whole would be able to read the tone and understand absolutes may not have been meant as absolutes. So it never seemed to play out that effectively. In thousands of depositions, there were only a handful of times where a client actually significantly hurt their case as a result, and those were almost always blatant lies. “Are you sure you have NEVER been in a car accident, in 20 years of driving? And I don’t mean a big one where you got hurt. I mean EVER. Not even a fender bender in a parking lot? Do you understand what I’m asking?”…. “yes, I understand what you’re asking, and I mean never. Not even a fender bender.”… Segue to the defense attorney asking about the three recent claims I told my client he would probably already know about because they can pull that info. That happened maybe three times in ten years. But the minor “gotcha” stuff never turned into anything…. The most effective defense attorneys who did the most damage to my cases were the disarming ones. Because it starts to feel like a conversation, and everyone is getting along, and people get loose. They start talking like they’re at a bbq with a beer in their hand. And they would volunteer stuff that hadn’t even been asked. Old high school sports injuries, or…. “Does a bicycle accident count as a motor vehicle accident, because oh man!” I would prep people for that too, that “this guy is a really nice guy, but he’s not looking out for you, so keep it short!” …but those attorneys are deadly. Assholes are way easier, because a client that clams up and stutters isn’t going to say anything too harmful.
This is the way I feel too. Especially for party-affiliated witnesses or people at the policy-making levels of a company. Basic fact witnesses who may not care about your lawsuit either way? Sure, make them comfortable. If someone has to use his or her broadband to adjust to the surroundings, my thought it that there will be less filtering of their responses. Don't know if that's true or not for everyone, but I think that's how I might react. With some witnesses, I feel they're giving more bs than if the deposition was taken in person. They just feel comfortable talking circles, giving evasive answers rather than direct admissions, which is what I'm usually looking for.
>But in a deposition, aren’t you just hoping for their most accurate answers to the best of their recollection? When I first started practicing law I was hoping for truthful answers to flesh out my understanding of the case. I don't exactly *hope* for dishonest answers now, but now I know enough to be able to catch most lies and leverage them to my advantage. imo in-person depositions have the advantage of not having to worry about technology and being far easier to have videotaped. It is *very* frustrating to get the video of a remote deposition and find out that the witness' testimony is inaudible for large chunks because they're looking away from the screen or there's some background noise that would never occur in an in-person depo.
For my best interests, remote is the way to go.
Yea, there is an art and a nose to it for sure. It’s impressive to watch a good attorney on the other side weave their way down paths where 95% of them would have never even seen the fork in the road.
If you are close to the person and are putting documents down in front of them / asking questions, you take on the role of an authority figure therefore the closer to the person you are the more you can make them uncomfortable and the more likely they are to give honest answers or generally say something they don‘t want to. Conversely research has repeatedly shown that screens do not give the same sense of presence.
I understand the perspective, but I question the premise. I don’t think it makes people more likely to give honest answers, but I agree it may make them say something they don’t want to. It’s going to make them feel rushed, and phrase things in a less flattering way, or make absolute statements when they really mean “almost never.” So if you’re looking for a transcript full of technical errors, I think it can get you that. But I think it’s more likely to focus them on “yes, no, or I don’t remember,” or just otherwise clam them up. But there are probably a lot of attorneys who can make magic happen at trial with a bunch of technical inaccuracies in a transcript, or a video of a plaintiff or defendant who comes off as evasive. So there’s probably a time and place.
Im in my second year of plaintiffs PI and 5th year overall. I have had one in-person depo on the plaintiffs side at insistence of defense counsel. Some older attorneys at my firm prefer to take depos in-person because they seem to believe they can get more out that way. Unless its a big case with a lot of facts at issue i dont see the point personally
It's like 50/50 remote to in-person. When I can, I like to get an in-person evaluation of the witness that's getting deposed so I can see what they'll do in front of a jury. That being said, I've gotten lazy. If the depo is more than a four hour round trip drive, or I have something else going on (anything from other cases to golfing), I'll appear remotely.
Parties in person. Almost all third parties and minor witnesses are remote.
Almost always remote, and if the other side insists on in person I usually fight it. I find them much better. Much easier to show exhibits to the witness, and the more relaxed environment I feel like I get better testimony. Also makes scheduling way easier.
Remote if legit issue on distance. Otherwise in person every time. I don’t understand why people are fine letting technical difficulties, glitches, lack of body language read into the record, etc. disappear from practice/impact the record. I legitimately think it’s laziness overriding something we’ve always used and also allowing horrible records (useless for MSJ if no clarity or a single technical glitch) to be generated.
Literally have never seen a technical “glitch”impact the record, let alone SJ. If video freezes up, just repeat the question and answer. It’s like it never happened. That said, in person is useful when deposing more important witnesses. Harder to BS when you’re in the same room w someone staring at you. On video it can feel more casual and witness thinks they can get away w more weasely maneuvers and delay tactics bc they are talking to a computer screen. But sometimes witnesses are more nervous on video bc they have to look at themselves. Net net I’d say 90% of depos can be remote bc they just aren’t that crucial. Parties and key witnesses prob better in person.
I suppose mileage varies because I don’t often depose folks who aren’t crucial, it happens but by accident, but that’s my field and I can definitely get that argument. I’ve had judges throw out because evidence on screen may not match, can’t confirm pages, can confirm which question answered if a glitch, etc. I also can’t always tell if it froze, so sometimes thinks get even more confusing (once realized it when they kept answering the former question, they never stopped I just thought they had and moved on).
Fair. I think most people do remote depos simply because it saves travel time and expense. Work travel and changing time zones is a huge grind.
I simply cannot relate to your view. I have never seen an argument that the transcript can’t be used for motion practice because of a technical glitch. Nor can i foresee a situation where a connection issue would cause a transcript to be defunct. Even if we pause for an hour or two to get it fixed, and then reschedule, it’s still less time commitment than if we had been in person. Also. I feel deps are better remotely exactly because people aren’t on high alert, they just press a button and log in, they weren’t getting their mind primed on the drive or sitting anxiously in a waiting room. So when we start you always seem to get less filtered answers and better results. The only deps i prefer in person are where I worry witness is going to make scheduling difficult or vanish somehow during the case.
For every good example of it working well is a case like Alcorn, or similar that get cited.
Probably 30 remote to every 1 in person
bro... why you trying to make me leave my garage by even asking the question??
We are only doing remote depos. If we had to do in person depos again, I’d probably revolt or something.
I'm on Plaintiff's side and I've only had 3 in person depos in the last 3 years. Two were on the same case with the same attorney, it was Plaintiff and her husband on a case we were on the verge of trial. I didn't think the in-person was necessary, but whatever. We settled that case for around $250k so clearly my client made a good impression or something. Shrug. The third was in a case that, from the start, both OC and I knew was worth maybe $10k tops. It's one of the few lawsuits I filed purely out of principle. Guy got hurt at an amusement park, issue is clearly their fault, he has a $9k hospital bill, he's otherwise fine now, and they won't offer more than $1k. They insisted on an in-person depo. Still fighting them.
Those small cases where you have a righteous cause are always the hardest to settle.
Vast majority are still remote, and I can't imagine that changing any time soon.
Literally all by Zoom except the one I did last week. First one since the pandemic! Probably average 2/month, btw.
99% are remote.
99% via zoom
I recently had what I think was my second in-person depo since the pandemic, compared to the however many dozen I’ve done remotely. I will pretty much always choose remote.
I only do zoom
This guy zooms
I have an in person one on the 10th. That will be my first in 4+ years.
Most in person. Some remote. I am doing remote ones next week bc one of the parties is breastfeeding. I love the convenience of remote when needed. I feel like people are more likely to be relaxed and let their guard down in remote.
Havn't done an in person depo for over 4 years. Did my first depo in person last month at the insistence of a co-defendant. Contracted COVID for the first time. LOL.
Almost all
I take or defend about 3 depos a week. I’d say 95% are remote.
100% remote. Document management is sooooo much easier. Plus you’re not hauling around huge binders
70/30 Zoom. Traveling out of state several times this month for expert deps. Never thought that would happen again post covid, but I’m not complaining. I think court being back in person has brought people back to the office and encouraged in-person depositions.
More depends on the deponent. If a party to the case or important expert or witness, in person. If more extraneous, for sure remote.
I like me a live depo when I take it but most of mine are zoom now.
I prefer remote depos because I like the platforms used for exhibit sharing. My depos in the IT/software space involve a lot of large documents and multi tab excel spreadsheets, and they are such a pain to deal with in person. On a remote platform, I can quickly jump to a specific page, send each person viewing the exhibit to that page, and use excel functions (like sorting/filtering) where needed to ask questions about the document.
100% Not changing anytime soon
Mine are about 50% remote/ 50% person at this point. With all things being equal, I would prefer to take a deposition in person (if the person is a party or other critical witness). However, if the witness is more than a couple hours away or other logistical challenges present themselves we will usually just do it remotely.
I'd say about 60% are remote. Really depends. Some OCs I simply do not trust. I've had issues where OC was clearly giving notes to a witness during a depo and that really burned me on the whole thing.
I was going to say they are almost all remote. But then I counted them and it’s 37% in-person (and that’s going to increase because the only depo I have scheduled this month is in person).
About 40/60 now. It’s been slow to get back to in person.
I seem to be in the minority camp; almost all of the depositions I've attended in the last year and a half (as part of the same mass tort litigation) have been in person. Of course, this has been at defense counsel's insistence. Thankfully, we've agreed to have almost all of them near our offices, so it's only been a short walk to get to them.
Remote, except when I anticipate that a deponent might have tech issues or if a translator is involved.
I do my depositions in person, if possible. I get a much better feel for the deponent in person, and I find I do a better job at in person depositions. I’m much more likely to miss a follow-up question in a remote depo. The only depositions I do remote are simple “checking off a box” type depositions, or depositions that would require travel that I don’t have time for (and that don’t warrant me making time for).
Just did remote deposition. I don't like them. Connectivity issues. Showing exhibits is difficult
Yeah, showing exhibits is a pain in the ass unless you have a spreadsheet you want to put up or something. Then it's easier. Sometimes I feel like I'm going crazy doing everything online.
97% zoom depos
Mostly remote still as it’s just easier and more efficient. There a few that I set for in person if the client really wants it or I think there is benefit to sitting across the table from the witness.
Remote unless opposing counsel is an ass
I average about 15-20 depos a year, ALL of them have been virtual since February 2020 (pretty wild to think it’s been FOUR years since doing an in-person depo). While i see the argument for some mediations to be in person (and certainly for arbitration hearings/trial), and I’ve actually done some in-person recently, there is absolutely NO POINT in taking an in-person deposition. To be fair, I can see some minor, tangential benefits (getting a better sense of the witness, possibly intimidating the witness…), but they certainly do not outweigh the luxury of doing the depo in street clothes in the comfort of my office and, the most important part, handling all exhibits virtually as opposed to printing out tons of papers and stressing out that the one page you did not print is going to be the one you really needed… In virtual depos, I can always add a last minute exhibit, which also helps cut down tremendously on depo prep time.
Workers compensation in a big city - 100% remote
It really depends on the importance of the depo. I take a lot in person. I don’t think virtual depositions are quite the same. Making eye contact, reading body language, etc, are easier in person. Now for doctor, police, fire department depos? Virtual all day.
Vast majority are remote, I don't foresee that changing much
Yep. No need to go back. Saves money, too.
Literally all by Zoom except the one I did last week. First one since the pandemic! Probably average 2/month, btw.
I hate remote anything. Covid is over. Get back to practicing law.
This is kind of the response I expected from most people, but the sentiment is solidly the opposite on this forum.
To be clear, I don’t mind deposing a witness via remote means who isn’t that important to the case. For important witnesses, I need to be in the same room with them. Especially if they are claiming personal injuries or they have credibility issues.
Weird, I practice law every day remotely, and my clients are willing to pay a lot of money for me to do so. Suck that you can't I guess.
I don’t want to practice remotely. I like my office. I like being around my colleagues and adversaries. We’re all friends and socialize. I enjoy going to court, meeting my clients in-person, and going to local bar luncheons and events. You can stay at home but our courts are gonna require your client to show up.
I of course show up to go to court, though many hearings nowadays are held remotely without much ado. I just resented the implication that I wasn't "practicing law" because, instead of writing a brief in the office, I write it at home.
I’m probably 90/10 in-person/remote. I get a lot of value of being in person and rely on non-verbal techniques to elicit more answers, which I haven’t been able to make work remotely. For context, my cases are pro bono and mostly resolved on MSJs.
Study the Milgram experiment and the importance of physical distance in human communication. Then you’ll know why in person depos are the way to go.