I’ve reported on many changes in the work world but noticed a new angle on the impact I wanted to review – the Courts. Specifically, remote access to the Courts.
Law360 recently covered the demands of court watchers, who provide transparency and accountability for the courts by volunteering to observe criminal justice proceedings and their efforts to keep remote access as the systems transition back to in-person only.
Quoting the piece:
The public’s access to virtual court proceedings during pandemic courtroom closures was inconsistent at best, say court watchers.
Some judiciaries allowed observers to join Zoom proceedings that included full video and audio access, while others offered only audio livestreams that were often plagued with technical problems.
Some courts gave the public no way of observing virtual criminal hearings at all.
The article focuses then on the benefits of remote access, and now upcoming legislation and lawsuits concentrate on preserving the benefits.
I’m less interested in this for the specific example than the idea of second-order effects. The move to allow remote access was not made to ease the court watchers’ jobs, yet it improved their experience. An unexpected benefit… and thus changes remove that benefit. Taking away something, even if it was an unexpected boon, is impactful, and that constituency will care.
As second-order effects are generally unexpected, they should be considered first-order effects and factor into the decision-making process when you’re made aware of them. Take a moment to think if you have intelligence in these areas and factor that in.