RELATING TO COURTS AND CIVIL PROCEDURE -- COURTS -- PERMITTING, VIRTUAL OR REMOTE COURT HEARINGS
H8328 would create a new chapter in Title 8 of the Rhode Island General Laws authorizing courts statewide to conduct hearings, conferences, motions, proceedings, and other appearances in whole or in part by virtual or remote means. The bill applies broadly to the supreme, superior, family, district, workers’ compensation, and traffic tribunal courts, and it allows parties, witnesses, and attorneys to participate by telephone or video conference, subject to court rules and procedures.
The bill also provides that remote appearances have the same force and effect as in-person appearances, and that no party may be disadvantaged solely because they appear remotely. At the same time, judges retain discretion to require in-person attendance if they make a specific finding on the record that remote participation would materially prejudice a party’s rights, impair the proceeding’s integrity, or interfere with the fair and efficient administration of justice. The chief justice or other presiding authority may adopt rules covering technology, notice, identity verification, and recordkeeping, and courts are directed to make remote participation reasonably accessible to self-represented litigants and people with disabilities.
If enacted, the bill would expand and standardize the authority of Rhode Island courts to use remote technology across nearly all court types and proceeding types. It would affect litigants, attorneys, witnesses, and court administrators by formalizing remote access as a legally equivalent method of appearance, while preserving judicial control over when in-person attendance is necessary. The measure would also likely require courts to maintain or develop administrative rules and technical procedures for remote hearings, accessibility, and official records.
The bill appears generally favorable to modernization and access to justice, with its text emphasizing flexibility, equal legal effect, and accessibility for self-represented litigants and people with disabilities. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented opposition or recorded debate in the supplied materials. Based on the bill’s structure, the overall sentiment is pro-remote access and pro-administrative efficiency, while still preserving judicial oversight.
The main point of potential contention is the balance between convenience and due process: the bill broadly permits remote participation, but some may worry that remote hearings could affect credibility assessments, evidentiary presentation, or the fairness of certain proceedings. The bill addresses that concern by allowing judges to require in-person appearances when remote participation would materially prejudice a party or disrupt justice. Another possible area of concern is implementation, including technology standards, identity verification, and ensuring meaningful access for unrepresented parties and people with disabilities.