Rules package to codify remote proceedings argued.

A sweeping rules petition designed to promote permanent, broader access to remote court proceedings won't jeopardize the rights of rural or low-income Floridians or Baker Act respondents, the chair of a Supreme Court COVID-19 Workgroup told justices.

At February 8 oral arguments, Ninth Circuit Judge Lisa Munyon, chair of the "Workgroup on the Continuity of Court Operations and Proceedings During and After COVID-19," said the 18-member panel carefully considered the more than 100 comments the proposal generated after it was filed July 1.

"I will be the first to acknowledge that these rules aren't perfect," Judge Munyon said. "The workgroup did the best it could with this complicated subject."

Judge Munyon addressed concerns ranging from the potential impact on pro se litigants and Baker Act respondents, to concerns that the proposal doesn't go far enough to promote a remote option for routine criminal proceedings.

The Supreme Court chose the remote technology proposal, in which 11 attorneys shared more than an hour of debate, to debut a "hybrid" format that permitted attorneys to appear in person or via videoconference. An inevitable technical glitch forced a few momentary interruptions, with some justices complaining that they had trouble hearing one participant.

"This is the first-time we've done hybrid proceedings," said Chief Justice Charles Canady. "If the volume is turned up all the way, then the volume is turned up all the way ... we'll just have to proceed."

Mostly drawn to Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.530 (Communications Technology), the petition encompasses six other rule sets: Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Probate Rules, Traffic Court, Small Claims, and Appellate Procedure.

(At the workgroup's suggestion, Justice Canady ordered the Steering Committee on Families and Children in the Court to develop technology-related amendments for delinquency, dependency, and family law matters on a separate track.)

The Florida Bar, Bar sections, and procedural rules committees all expressed general support for the concept of incorporating more remote hearings into permanent court operations, with the Miami-Dade Bar, the Traffic Court Rules Committee, and the Small Claims Rules Committee urging adoption of the proposed amendments as they were originally filed.

Judge Munyon reminded the justices that the workgroup considered all comments and made revisions where appropriate.

"We considered the comments very carefully and tried to make adjustments to the proposals to address the concerns expressed, where we could do so and maintain the fidelity of the rules that we're proposing," Judge Munyon said.

Civil legal aid groups expressed some of the most strenuous objections, warning that the proposal would deny access to justice to low-income and rural Floridians who lack technical expertise or reliable access to the internet.

The workgroup recommended amendments to Rule 2.516 that would require self-represented litigants to...