In-House Q&A: Thomson Reuters’ Gina Jurva On The Future Of Litigation

Gina Jurva, now of Thomson Reuters, is a litigator and former state deputy district attorney in the San Francisco Bay Area. There, she prosecuted misdemeanor and felony cases and later opened a criminal defense practice. 

Since joining Thomson Reuters, she has served as a senior legal writer and editor focusing on courts, litigation, and justice. She is currently the company’s Manager of Market Insights and Thought Leadership for Government and Corporates. 

In her current role, Jurva leads content and multimedia thought leadership activities to highlight solutions to some of the world’s most pressing government sector challenges, including issues impacting courts and justice, government fraud, waste and abuse, anti-money laundering, human trafficking, national security, and public safety.

Here, she weighs in on post-pandemic challenges for the court system, how access to justice increased for some litigants, and what we can expect in the future of courtroom litigation.

Thanks for taking the time to talk with me today. I understand that you’ve got a new report out that we’re going to discuss, but why don’t we start with a little about your background first?

Sure, absolutely. I went to law school in the Bay Area. Then I was a criminal prosecutor, and like I said, I ran my own criminal defense firm for a while too before coming on at Thomson Reuters. 

At Thomson Reuters, I manage market insights and thought leadership for our businesses serving government and corporate customers. On the government side, I’m following market trends, writing and curating content, and doing live events as well. I handle courts, fraud, risk, and in particular financial fraud as it relates to government. 

On the corporate side, the focus is on fraud, financial crime, money-laundering as it pertains to financial clients, and I also handle the corporate counsel lines of business.

So, this new study you’ve authored is on post-pandemic challenges in the judicial system and court backlog. What brought on a report like this?

When the pandemic began, we watched the world shut down. We were unsure what was happening. We were getting different information from watching the news and from our daily lives. 

I knew as a litigator that this was going to have a profound impact on the court system. Anecdotally we knew that COVID-19 created unique challenges that changed the court system, but we wanted data. We wanted to know how the litigants were being impacted, how courts were adapting.

What did you find?

Courts were trying new things. Backlogs have been a problem even in the best of times, but courts were trying to find ways to keep their backlogs in check, things like more telephone conferences and introducing Zoom trials. There were a lot of challenges. How do we share evidence using videoconferencing technology? That sort of thing. Ultimately, though, when using virtual proceedings, we found access to justice increased.

When I say access to justice increased, think of self-represented litigants who do not have as much experience with the court system. Why did access to justice increase for these litigants? There was convenience for the parties. You can actually log in to the courtroom in your own home. Also, think about the courtroom environment. It can be intimidating to be in a courtroom, even for well-practiced lawyers. You’re in this imposing wood-paneled room with the judge and all these lawyers and courtroom staff — virtual options allowed people to take a step back from that and, as a result, participation increased.

On the flip side, for some litigants there were technology issues, lack of internet access, or maybe not having proficiencies with the technologies. There are certainly areas for improvements, and courts have been working hard to address many of these.

Maybe the million-dollar question, at least for those of us who are regularly involved in the court system, is whether the emphasis on remote proceedings is going to continue once the pandemic is over. What do you think as someone who has done the research?

Well, our data found that 86 percent of courts plan to do a combination of in-person and virtual hearings in the future. Of those surveyed, 42 percent of judges and other court professionals felt that access to justice increased with virtual hearings and, as time goes on, I do think we will be seeing more of this. 

I think especially with regard to the self-represented litigants — they don’t have to take a full day off from work, they don’t have to get childcare, they can log in for an hour or two from home rather than traveling to a courthouse and waiting for a hearing to start. 

When I used to have to bring witnesses in for cases, I couldn’t give them an exact time they’d have to testify. They’d have to take the whole day off, often to spend most of it waiting for the trial to begin. This new way of doing things has the power to exponentially decrease the burden on litigants.

In a criminal context though? That could be a little trickier. There have been some Sixth Amendment challenges to remote proceedings. In a criminal case, especially in high-stakes felony cases, having in-person hearings to the extent we can, in as safe a manner as possible, is probably going to make more sense. But a lot of civil hearings — status hearings, for instance — could be online, could be quicker, and could be more efficient if done virtually.

You’re telling me. It used to drive me nuts when we’d have in-person scheduling hearings and the other firm would send two lawyers to bill time driving an hour in each direction for something that could’ve been handled in a five-minute phone call or Zoom session. Did you encounter any sentiment about the casualness with which some folks approach testifying when they can do it from their kitchen table?

Does it diminish the decorum of courtroom proceedings to hold hearings remotely? Maybe. 

All of those things are just about preparation though. We talked to a number of judges and heard about cases where a cat jumped onto someone’s lap while testifying and that sort of thing. 

For the most part though, interruptions like that were met with good humor, and it is stuff that could be largely avoided by properly preparing. If someone’s at ease while they’re talking, that’s a great thing, and being able to participate in a court proceeding in a less intimidating setting helps with that.

Well, thanks again for taking the time to chat with me today. Sounds like you gained some useful insights in authoring this report. Any parting thoughts you’d like to leave the readers with?

The silver lining is that this is going to usher in a new era of technology use and innovation. We are creating a more efficient way to run court proceedings, one that enables more access to justice. Parties might have a more integrated way to share evidence going forward. Sharing that in one platform will hopefully be easier for litigants.

The last thing I want to add: As someone who was trained in a classic litigation style in law school and did the whole mock trial thing, I was taught how to present a case to a live fact finder, whether judge or jury. I learned where to stand, how to use body language and maintain eye contact as appropriate. That might have to change if we stick with the new model. We might have to consider teaching law students how to present virtually. There could be a class offering to that effect in law school.

That sounds like a great idea.

Overall, I’m very optimistic on the future of our courts and I think that the challenges we did face, we’re working through them. This survey really shows the optimism.

---

Jonathan Wolf is a civil litigator and author of Your Debt-Free JD (affiliate link). He has taught legal writing, written for a wide variety of publications, and made it both his business and his pleasure to be financially and scientifically literate. Any views he expresses are probably pure gold, but are nonetheless solely his own and should not be attributed to any organization with which he is affiliated. He wouldn’t want to share the credit anyway. He can be reached at jon_wolf@hotmail.com.