Owl Labs (OL): Ron and Nicole, you both work at CourtCall. Can you tell me a little bit about who your clients are and what you're offering?
Nicole Hebel (NH): CourtCall was established in 1995, created by attorneys who wanted to make an easier way to get to and from the courtroom. In 1996, we had our first call and we have completed over 5 million calls since. Our clients are strictly the courts in general; anything from civil courts to bankruptcy courts. The company was solely based on audio, but about five years ago we actually dove into the video component to sit parallel with our audio portion. Video opened the market to do a lot more, so we are very engaged with the criminal courts. We do video arraignments, remote interviewing, and anything else where we can eliminate travel from the equation for any entity within the justice system.
Ron DaLessio (RD): We have three solutions: Remote Appearance is our primary service but we also have a Point-to-Point Video, which is primarily used for Video Arraignment. We have VRI as well, which is Video Remote Interpretation and lets the interpreter or inmate join remotely. The way we use the Meeting Owl in most instances is at the court end. Judges like it because the inmate or whoever is coming in remotely can see the whole courtroom. One of the things we try to do at CourtCall is to replicate the courtroom experience as if you were standing right in front of the judge. When the inmate is in front of the judge physically, they can turn and look around and see who is there; the Meeting Owl gives us that same ability for a video participant.
OL: So you primarily use the Owl in a physical court. Who do you find is benefiting most from it?
RD: It is mostly attorneys but we are finding that it is expanding to virtually anybody. Whether it's an expert witness like a doctor who's testifying in a case, or a detective or whoever it might be that's coming in remotely, they can see everyone in the courtroom, including the judge. It gives them the feeling that they're standing there. We do not put the Owl in the jail or in the Department of Corrections as it doesn't make sense for the situation.
NH: Exactly, and in January 2019, in the state of Illinois where I currently reside, a law was passed where certain criminal defendants or inmates in custody needs a public defender in the courtroom at the time of their initial appearance. The Owl is the perfect solution for many judges in Illinois. The inmate can remain at the jail, see the entire courtroom, and see if a public defender is present because they have a 360° view.
The Meeting Owl is great for the courtroom setting due to the fact when the state reads the probable cause – if you can think of a traditional courtroom setting – the state's attorney is usually five to ten feet away at a different table, looking at the judge. The Owl allows defendants and inmates to see family members in the courtroom which makes them feel better and can even be therapeutic for them. Making defendants and inmates feel more at ease has been a goal for some jails and correctional facilities these days due to a lot of mental illness issues.
OL: How else does the Meeting Owl benefit attorneys?
RD: Attorneys see security and financial benefits. Courtrooms are crowded and it is very expensive and time-consuming for attorneys to get to court. Attorneys have to go through security, pay for parking, spend a few hours waiting for their case to be called, etc.
With CourtCall, the attorney can stay in their office and work on other cases. It lowers the cost of litigation and saves the attorneys time so they do not have to sit for four hours in the courtroom waiting for a five-minute appearance in front of the judge.
So, it is a combination of factors. The Owl helps judges be more open to the concept of video technology in their courtrooms as CourtCall is replicating the courtroom experience. If the person feels as if they are getting virtually the same experience as if they were standing there in front of the judge, that's a win for everybody.
OL: How do you introduce the Meeting Owl into courtrooms? What does that process look like?
RD: CourtCall purchases the owl from Owl Labs and then we include it in our solution. As you might expect the 360-degree view is a game-changer.
OL: Is everyone who uses CourtCall using a Meeting Owl? Or can they use it with any conference cam?
RD: We're agnostic with technology. You can use any camera and any microphone device you want. We offer the Owl as a great feature that we love. But if the judge wants a certain camera or a particular piece of hardware, we can work with that.
OL: What have been some of the challenges you've seen since you've added the video component to your offerings? Has it been hard to get people to adopt video?
RD: I would say people who are excited about technology think it is wonderful. There is a segment of the legal market that's still a bit cautious of video technology. So, there is no easy answer here. It depends on the judge or the court administrator or the sheriff or the law enforcement agency we are talking to and what their stance is on technology.
It also depends on the kind of infrastructure they have. Video takes bandwidth and being on their network and adjusting their security settings and things of that nature; many factors that go into it. For the most part, people are excited about video technology. People are used to it with their phones and computers at home, with FaceTime and things like that. People are much more comfortable with video today than they were five or ten years ago on the court market.
OL: What are the pieces that make an in-court video conferencing system work well together? You mentioned bandwidth, but what else do people need to get set up?
RD: CourtCall is a browser-based solution, so there is no software to download. For us, it is about flexibility and providing an agnostic solution where you can use virtually any camera and any microphone input. It makes life easy from the court's point of view because they don't have to stress out about their infrastructure and downloads, but in terms of requirements, bandwidth is the key.
You need access to the internet and a strong bandwidth. We can run on WiFi but when you look at the quality of a video call, the better the bandwidth, the better the call. Then, you need to determine where you want to display the video in the courtroom. Do you want to put it on a monitor, or on the judge's computer? There are many different elements involved and it depends on what the client is looking for. Service is what distinguishes CourtCall from most of the other video solutions.
OL: Why do you recommend the Meeting Owl so frequently to your clients?
RD: As I mentioned earlier, it's about replicating the courtroom experience. We try to do that as much as possible so an attorney who wants to come in remotely can use the Meeting Owl to visually see the whole courtroom as if they were standing there. To us, that is the key.
On the video arraignment side, an inmate who is in jail or in the Department of Corrections and is having a status conference or session with the judge or maybe their family members are there, they can have their session and see their family members on camera without attending in-person. The Owl gives you flexibility and a full viewpoint for the remote participant.
OL: What does the CourtCall team look like? Are you distributed or working out of an office?
RD: CourtCall is based in Los Angeles, CA and services Courts across the US and Canada and participants from around the world. Our Remote Appearance Platform has the advantage of also being a moderated platform; we can have operators on calls and we can plug participants into virtual rooms. So, if we are all on a call together and the two of us need to go into a virtual private room, we can do that with CourtCall's platform.
We also have a remote sales force that travels and sells directly and a channel network of distributors that report to Nicole. Their job is to help us in areas like Louisiana where we have a channel partner that sells CourtCall solutions and other products for us.
We do a lot of our sales meetings and company meetings through the virtual platform we have. Some people use the Owl; in the office, we have an Owl so remote folks can see everyone in the boardroom. We have a large portion of our force that's either on the road or working from home and we use our technology as a platform to connect remotely.
OL: What do you think makes a successful video conferencing meeting? What do people need to know if they're on distributed teams that struggle with that?
RD: I would say ease of use is critical for everyone. For example, if we had a meeting using CourtCall, Sophia, we would send you a link and all you would do is click the link to join then, you pick the device you want to use and you're in. It's that simple. We can even bypass the audio screen if you're always connecting the same way every time on audio. To us, it is about simplicity and, of course, the quality of the call is critically important. You don't want choppy video or choppy audio on an important legal proceeding.
OL: Are there any meetings that are more challenging than others to have via video versus having them in-person?
RD: One of the challenges we face is when we go in-person to do a presentation and we bring people in remotely. So, for example, if the client was in Boston, we would go out to Boston and set up the Owl so the judge can see it. People have a lot of questions when they see the Owl; more than any other hardware device we use. The Owl's eyes light up and it hoots, and they are curious to see how it works. It is hard to explain the first time online.
We like to be present to set up the Owl and explain how it works and how it ties into our platform. From there, it is a matter of bandwidth. Often we join a court's WiFi network and the WiFi might be restricted in terms of bandwidth; when you're trying to do a video conference, that makes it a real challenge. We usually go on-site to meet with someone to get the lay of the land and work through the technical issues, because security is very important to the courts and law enforcement. There is often a reluctance towards anything going on their network – whether it's video, recordings, or data. We have to have those conversations when we get there but then we are focused on video conferencing moving forward.
OL: What do you think the future of this space looks like? First, it started with audio calling, now it's video calling, what's next?
RD: Video calling is going to expand more and more in the legal market. As more courts, jails, and DOC's use it, they're finding that the flexibility of it offers a lot more options. There are several instances where we set up between jail and court and the next thing we know they're like, well, we have to transport from the mental health facility to the court – can we do that with CourtCall and of course the answer is "yes"!
We also have traffic courts that are busy with people who have to take time off of work to go contest a ticket. The Justice market will continue to expand with video technology and CourtCall will remain the leader in enhancing access to justice.
###