San Francisco, CA commercial litigation attorney Edward Hugo discusses his experience with virtual appeals. He explains that he has significant experience with virtual appeals and provides a concrete example: arguing before the Court of Appeals on time limits for examining a mesothelioma plaintiff under CCP section 2025.295. In that case, he addressed the court, noting the unique challenges of the virtual platform.

He emphasizes that virtual appeals require careful planning that traditional in-person advocacy does not. Lawyers must consider not only how they appear physically but also how they present themselves virtually and how they sound. Success demands practicing differently, often speaking into a computer and reviewing recordings to refine both visual presence and vocal delivery. He recommends studying recorded virtual appeals—available through California’s public records on platforms like YouTube—and practicing with either a videographer or a computer to perfect one’s virtual presentation.

While he has been critical of virtual trials, he notes that virtual appeals function effectively. The audience is smaller—typically three justices and one opposing counsel—making it easier to communicate directly with the court. In contrast, virtual trials involve a judge, live witnesses, 12 jurors plus alternates, and multiple opposing counsel on separate screens, making interactivity far more complex. In appellate arguments, the streamlined environment allows for a more direct and manageable engagement.