Home

SOULRUSH!

< Copyright 2026 Black Women in Communications LLC

_____________________________________________________________________________

with simone beverly

Here Come da Judge

_______________________________

_________________________________________________________

" objtype="2" style="width: 750px; height: 179px; position: absolute; padding: 10px; top: 397px; left: 10px; z-index: 22920; " class="">

'All I Wanna Do is Zoom a Zoom Zoom Zoom in a Courtroom'
(formerly titled 'The Probate Court and Zoom Hearings')

(note: This is Part One of a Two Part Series)

At some point during the COVID - 19 era , the Courts began the practice of holding Zoom Hearings in lieu of in - person appearances. Today, and despite that there is no longer a need for such cautionary procedures, Zoom Hearings have become the new normal for the Courts. Unfortunately, and although they are well intentioned , Zoom Hearings are a curse and a blessing, and, as such, should be discontinued.

That said, we turn to our friends at the Cuyahoga County Probate Court to make our point. Here's todays post:

On or about March 1, 2026, a pro se applicant aka 'a party not represented by counsel,' filed an application to administer the estate of a decedent who died in 2021. Three weeks passed before the application was scheduled for Zoom Hearing, and an additional six weeks passed before the date of the actual hearing.

Two days before the Zoom Hearing was set to be held, a second application to administer the estate was filed by an attorney represented applicant, who, along with the application to administer the estate, filed a motion to continue the Zoom Hearing. The Court promptly granted the motion to continue the Zoom Hearing , and a new Zoom hearing was set for six weeks out.

On the date of the rescheduled Zoom Hearing, the pro se applicant attempted to join the meeting at its scheduled start time, but received an automated response advising that the 'meeting host has not arrived , please try again later,' 'the meeting has not begun , please try again later,' or something to this effect. In any case, based on the automated responses received from Zoom, and multiple failed attempts to join the meeting, the pro se applicant contends that the meeting was not held. After multiple unsuccessful attempts to join the meeting within a thirty minute timeframe however, the applicant attempted to reach the Magistrates assistant, but the call, instead, went to voice mail. The applicant ultimately reached a Court adminstrator/staff attorney to advise of failed attempts to join the meeting, and furthermore asked whether the Court was running late. The administrator placed the call on hold, made some inquiries , and returned to say that 'the meeting was held,' and added that the Court waited fifteen minutes for the applicant , but to no avail. At this point, the applicant privately challenged the Courts version of what transpired, but did not go back and forth with the administrator.

That said, heres where it gits real:

First, it so happens that the applicant receives incident reports from Zoom. That is, if there is an outage or disruption of any type, at any time, Zoom sends a detailed notification of the issues to everyone who has signed up to receive such notifications, which includes the applicant. For the day and time in question however, Zoom issued no incident report , because there were no incidents to report. In short, there was no outage or disruption that would have prevented the applicant from joining the meeting, so we can rule technical issues out as a basis for the applicants inability to join the meeting.

Second, Zoom has a mechanism in place that allows hosts and meeting organizers to download Zoom meetings, and access meeting history and records. In short, there should be tangible evidence that the hearing did , in fact, transpire, and the applicant has asked the Court for such verification. The Court , however, has issued no response.

Here's the bottom line though: The Court says the hearing was held, the applicant says it was not. Moreover, the applicant has asked the Court to provide documentation that the hearing was held. Why? Because, quite simply, the 'Courts word' that the hearing took place ain't good enough, especially since all indicators are that it did not.

So the meeting took place? Prove it. Its just that simple.

But is the Probate Court even required to record or document its hearings?

Be it Zoom or otherwise?

We'll discuss that next week.

Stay tuned...

___________________________________________________________________________________