Virtual Hearings, Efficiency, and Access to Justice: A Lawyers’ Perception SurveyAbstract
Implementation of virtual hearings has grown exponentially since 2020 due to COVID-19. However, the topic remains underexplored with scientific parameters. In this context, this paper aims to analyze the influence of virtual hearings on judicial efficiency and access to justice from the perspective of lawyers. A questionnaire using a Likert-type agreement scale was completed by 250 attorneys involved in virtual hearings in the Brazilian Judiciary. The data were analyzed through exploratory factor analysis, and four factors were identified: resources and structure, accessibility, performance, and procedure. The results show that the quality of internet connections and defendant-judge interaction during hearings need improvement. Handling witnesses and collecting evidence in sensitive cases like sexual crimes and domestic violence requires extra care. The study concludes that enhancing technological infrastructure and standardizing procedures are necessary steps to enable virtual hearings to contribute effectively to judicial governance and support more equitable access to justice.
Keywords
Virtual hearings; information technologies; access to justice; judicial governance; legal professions
Resumen
La realización de audiencias virtuales creció de forma exponencial a partir del año 2020, como consecuencia de la pandemia de COVID-19. No obstante, el tema aún ha sido escasamente abordado con parámetros científicos. En esta línea, el artículo tiene como objetivo analizar la influencia de las audiencias virtuales en la eficiencia judicial y en el acceso a la justicia, a partir de la percepción de abogados. Un cuestionario con respuestas estandarizadas en escala de Likert fue respondido por 250 abogados que actuaron en audiencias virtuales en el Poder Judicial brasileño. Los datos fueron analizados mediante análisis factorial exploratorio, identificándose cuatro factores que capturan las percepciones de los encuestados: recursos y estructura, accesibilidad, desempeño y procedimiento. Los resultados revelan que la variabilidad en la calidad de la conexión a internet y los desafíos en la interacción entre los acusados y los jueces durante las audiencias son aspectos que requieren mejoras. Además, la gestión de testigos y la eficacia en la obtención de pruebas en casos sensibles, como delitos contra la dignidad sexual y violencia doméstica, requieren un enfoque más cuidadoso. El estudio concluye que la mejora de la infraestructura tecnológica y la estandarización de los procedimientos son esenciales para garantizar que las audiencias virtuales contribuyan de manera significativa a la gobernanza judicial, promoviendo un acceso más justo y equitativo a la justicia.
Palabras clave
Audiencias virtuales; tecnologías de la información; acceso a la justicia; gobernanza judicial; profesiones jurídicas
Resumo
A realização de audiências virtuais cresceu de forma exponencial a partir dos anos 2020, em decorrência da covid-19. No entanto, o tema ainda é pouco estudado com parâmetros científicos. Nessa linha, este artigo tem como objetivo analisar a influência das audiências virtuais na eficiência judicial e no acesso à justiça, a partir da percepção de advogados. Um questionário contendo uma escala de concordância tipo Likert foi respondido por 250 advogados que atuaram em audiências virtuais no Judiciário brasileiro. Os dados foram analisados por meio de análise fatorial exploratória, e quatro fatores foram identificados: recursos e estrutura, acessibilidade, desempenho e procedimento. Os resultados revelam que a qualidade da conexão de internet e a interação entre réus e juízes durante as audiências necessitam de melhorias. Além disso, a gestão de testemunhas e a eficácia na coleta de provas em casos sensíveis, como crimes sexuais e violência doméstica, requerem uma abordagem mais cuidadosa. O estudo conclui que a melhoria na infraestrutura tecnológica e a padronização dos procedimentos são etapas necessárias para assegurar que as audiências virtuais contribuam de maneira efetiva para a governança judicial e para um acesso mais justo e equitativo à justiça.
Palavras-chave
Audiências virtuais; tecnologias de informação; acesso à justiça; governança judicial; profissões jurídicas
Introduction1
Technological innovations have brought about significant changes in human interactions. Increasingly, social relations are conducted through digital means, to the extent that scholars refer to the emergence of the “homo digitalis” (Freitas; Lunardi; Correia, 2023). Judicial systems have endeavored to keep pace with this technological transformation (Oliveira et al., 2023). Since the 1980s, there has been a progressive integration of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) into judicial operations, promising enhanced transparency, greater efficiency, and a radical transformation of work practices (Contini, 2020).
In this regard, the digitalization of the Judiciary has generally developed across three distinct phases or generations: 1) the “photo-process,” in which physical case files are scanned and uploaded to a digital platform; 2) the “e-process,” wherein proceedings are initiated and conducted entirely in electronic format; and 3) the “i-process,” or intelligent process, characterized by the use of automation tools and artificial intelligence to optimize procedural workflows and assist judges and court personnel (Chaves Júnior, 2015; Oliveira et al., 2023). Judicial hearings conducted in virtual environments fall within the framework of the second and third phases of the electronic judicial process (Oliveira et al., 2023).
Judicial hearings, traditionally understood as procedural acts marked by solemnity and formality, underwent a rapid transformation starting in the 2020s. This shift was significantly driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, which accelerated the adoption of virtual environments for conducting such proceedings (Oliveira et al., 2023; Costa; Lunardi; Guimarães, 2024). This development is directly linked to the virtualization of judicial processes and the dematerialization of courts (Costa; Lunardi; Guimarães, 2024), establishing a new dynamic in which physical courtrooms give way to digital platforms, thereby promoting the progressive virtualization of procedural acts, even though the full integration of technological tools and systems remains a work in progress (Oliveira et al., 2023).
In this context, there are studies suggesting that virtual hearings may enhance judicial efficiency (Oliveira et al., 2023), procedural simplification (Arvay, 2021), access to justice (Moraes; Lunardi; Correia, 2024; Araújo Filho et al., 2024), cost reduction (Bosland; Townend, 2018), and the mitigation of judicial delay (Dijk; Dumbrava, 2013). Meanwhile, other studies raise concerns about the virtual hearing model, particularly regarding the reduction of public oversight and social participation (Lindsey, 2020), as well as the ability to monitor procedural acts (Bosland; Townend, 2018). These concerns are particularly significant for legal practitioners, who, to ensure fair and adequate adjudication, rely on direct communication with their clients, oral advocacy to construct legal arguments, and the effectiveness of evidentiary proceedings.
The Brazilian Judiciary exhibits similarities with both European and Latin American models in its use of virtual means (Oliveira et al., 2023; Alves; Lunardi; Correia, 2025). In the European context, CEPEJ guidelines highlight efficiency, procedural safeguards, and the institutionalization of digital case management systems (CEPEJ, 2021). Brazil and Switzerland converge in adopting electronic case files and procedural automation, although these countries diverge in infrastructural consistency and platform standardization within their judiciaries (Sousa; Kettiger; Lienhard, 2022). In Latin America, analyses of virtual oral hearings reveal the challenges of preserving immediacy and oral tradition in digital environments, tensions that also resonate in Brazil (Postigo, 2024).
On the one hand, Brazil’s judicial system is at an advanced stage of digitalization compared with other Latin American countries, resembling certain European jurisdictions, particularly in the presence of multiple electronic case management systems and procedural automation (Oliveira et al., 2023; Arvay, 2021). On the other hand, Brazil faces challenges akin to those encountered by other Latin American nations, such as unequal access to the internet (Almeida et al., 2005), regional disparities in digital infrastructure, significant geographic distances from judicial headquarters (Moraes; Lunardi; Correia, 2024; Araújo Filho et al., 2024), and difficulties faced by legal professionals in adapting to a virtual environment. These factors underscore the importance of researching virtual hearings in Brazil, considering not only their benefits and opportunities, but also their potential impacts and risks to the effectiveness of legal representation and the quality of judicial decision-making. Furthermore, given the regional disparities of access to technology across Brazil, it is essential to assess whether the virtualization of hearings genuinely enhances access to justice.
Accordingly, the present study aims to analyze the influence of virtual hearings on judicial efficiency and access to justice, from the perspective of lawyers. To accomplish this objective, the research began with a literature review on judicial governance and virtual hearings. Upon establishing the theoretical framework, the study proceeded to an empirical stage, which involved questionnaires to gather the perspectives of lawyers, identified as key stakeholders within the justice system. The questionnaire included standardized items, with responses measured on a five-point agreement Likert scale. Lawyers were selected as participants, given their role in directly representing litigants’ interests and their practical experience with the effects of the virtual hearing model. Thus, the perspectives of these professionals may provide valuable insights into the benefits and limitations of virtual hearings, with a focus on the experience of users of judicial services (Correia et al., 2024).
1. Theoretical Framework
The digitalization of the Brazilian Judiciary has unfolded within a broader context of administrative modernization, aimed at enhancing the efficiency of judicial services and expanding access to justice, a central theme in procedural law studies since the seminal work of Cappelletti and Garth (1988). Within this framework, a growing body of research highlights the importance of evaluating the extent to which electronic proceedings facilitate access to justice, reduce costs, increase transparency, simplify procedural acts, and expedite case processing (Silva, 2007; Yeung; Silva, 2024; Hino; Cunha, 2020).
Judicial governance has served as a critical reference point for understanding this phenomenon. It is structured around seven key constructs: accessibility, accountability, governance practices, independence, resources and structure, institutional environment, and performance (Akutsu; Guimarães, 2015). Evaluation of virtual hearings focused on resources, structure, accessibility, and performance.
Technology is not a neutral instrument solely guided by technical progress or the pursuit of efficiency (Alves; Lunardi; Correia, 2025). As a socially constructed system, it reflects power dynamics and may exacerbate inequalities if the underlying infrastructure is exclusionary (Araújo Filho et al., 2024). Conversely, it can serve to mitigate inequalities when designed, as in this study, to expand access and promote equity within the judicial system (Feenberg, 1991). From this perspective, Feenberg (1991) contends that technological advances must be critically assessed, considering their impact on social and institutional structures. In the Judiciary context, this viewpoint encourages a critical examination of virtual hearings not merely as technical innovations, but as phenomena that redefine interactions between the parties to a dispute and reshape the dynamics of judicial administration (Oliveira et al., 2023; Alves; Lunardi; Correia, 2025).
The implementation of virtual hearings, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, significantly altered interactions among judges, lawyers, and litigants (Oliveira et al., 2023). However, this transition also introduced challenges that extend beyond operational efficiency, affecting fundamental procedural principles such as adversarial proceedings, full legal defense, and the perception of justice (Costa; Lunardi; Guimarães, 2024). According to Vadell (2021), procedural guarantees in a virtual environment are intrinsically linked to technical quality, as an unstable connection can impede the proper transmission of sound and images, thereby compromising a party’s ability to present arguments effectively.
The impact of this virtualization varies across judicial systems, depending on the structural, normative, and socioeconomic conditions of each society. While some experiences suggest improvements in celerity and accessibility (Arvay, 2021; Dijk; Dumbrava, 2013; Araújo Filho et al., 2024; Moraes; Lunardi; Correia, 2024), others highlight challenges relating to digital inequality, procedural transparency, and the preservation of fundamental guarantees (Lindsey, 2020; Bosland; Townend, 2018; Andraka-Christou et al., 2024). In fact, some studies argue that videoconferencing can enhance procedural guarantees by enabling the simultaneous participation of all actors, thus avoiding procedural issues common in traditional hearings, such as the appointment of ad hoc defenders with no prior knowledge of a case (Cruz; Lunardi; Guerreiro, 2020).
In the United Kingdom, virtual hearings were gradually introduced, particularly in lower-complexity cases (Arvay, 2021; Dijk; Dumbrava, 2013). Arvay (2021) notes that procedural simplification measures and the integration of digital technologies into the judicial system accompanied these practices. Dijk and Dumbrava (2013) emphasize that judicial digitalization in Europe was aimed at addressing procedural delays and overcoming territorial distances, promoting greater use of oral proceedings and video conferencing.
By contrast, in Latin America, Arvay (2021) observes that the adoption of virtual hearings was reactive and lacked a consolidated strategic plan during the pandemic. The absence of adequate technological infrastructure and the lack of training for legal professionals exacerbated pre-existing challenges in local judicial systems (Arvay, 2021).
While various studies underscore the benefits of adopting the virtual hearing model, others highlight its drawbacks and risks. Concerns over procedural transparency in digital environments have been raised by Lindsey (2020), who warns of the potential erosion of the principle of open justice, which threatens to reduce public scrutiny and social participation in judicial proceedings. Bosland and Townend (2018) further argue that virtual hearings may hinder external monitoring of procedural acts, especially in courts where no physical public space is available. To preserve the legitimacy of decisions rendered digitally, these authors advocate implementing unified platforms with public access, secure transmission protocols for hearings, and standardized digital records (Bosland; Townend, 2018).
Andraka-Christou et al. (2024) suggest that virtual hearings increase access to justice for people with mobility challenges and those living in remote areas; they also lower costs and boost participation of marginalized groups. Nonetheless, technological fragmentation may create new inequalities. Hearings conducted solely via audio may pose additional barriers for low-income populations who lack stable internet access and appropriate devices. The absence of visual interaction can undermine communication between parties and judges, thereby affecting the perceived legitimacy of proceedings. In this regard, in-person hearings may offer more favorable conditions for building trust and fostering spontaneous communication (Andraka-Christou et al., 2024). This debate is particularly relevant in sensitive matters, such as domestic violence cases, where concerns exist about ensuring the effectiveness of victim testimony in a virtual setting (Dutra, 2020). However, certain scholars regard this technology as an alternative means for victims to obtain protection (Ugioni; Ferreira; Chersoni, 2022).
Additionally, in Brazil, national and local conditions complicate the implementation of virtual hearings, especially in remote areas like the Amazon, where technological limitations are more pronounced. Studies conducted in riverside communities in the Amazon region highlight issues related to electricity, internet connectivity, and access to adequate information to exercise legal rights (Araújo Filho et al., 2024; Moraes; Lunardi; Correia, 2024). These same studies indicate that digital inclusion centers with internet access and trained staff can help people in remote areas with poor road infrastructure gain access to the Judiciary (Araújo Filho et al., 2024; Moraes; Lunardi; Correia, 2024).
In addition, the digital transformation of the Judiciary has directly impacted the professional practice of legal actors (Costa; Lunardi; Guimarães, 2024). The reduction of face-to-face interactions among lawyers, judges, and parties has significantly altered procedural strategies and traditional methods of direct communication (Costa; Lunardi; Guimarães, 2024; Silva; Yeung, 2022). Silva and Yeung (2022) emphasize that technology now mediates digital legal communication, so legal practitioners must develop new skills to ensure effective representation and proper interaction with judges and court staff.
Beyond technical competencies, legal practice in the digital environment demands a broader understanding of the symbolic and discursive shifts shaping virtual proceedings. The lack of physical contact may hinder the development of trust-based relationships, compelling lawyers to adapt their strategies and develop new methods of practice to safeguard adversarial proceedings and full defense in a deterritorialized context (Costa; Lunardi; Guimarães, 2024). Procedural guarantees depend on connection quality, which is vital for transmitting sound and image (Vadell, 2021). Meanwhile, virtual proceedings allow all parties to participate at once, potentially strengthening defense guarantees (Cruz; Lunardi; Guerreiro, 2020).
The literature indicates that virtual judicial hearings are a complex phenomenon organized around four interrelated axes: i) the epistemology of judicial decision-making, which emphasizes the hermeneutic and evidentiary challenges posed by the absence of non-verbal cues in digital environments (Vocht; Jacobs, 2024; De Regis, 2022; Rowden; Wallace, 2018); ii) the paradoxes of accessibility, which contrast the geographical expansion of access to justice with the emergence of new technological exclusions (Potiguar; Izycki, 2023; Alves; Lunardi; Correia, 2025; Dijk; Dumbrava, 2013); iii) organizational adaptation, which requires structural reforms and cultural transformation within the Judiciary to ensure digital sustainability (Rowden; Wallace, 2018; Alves; Lunardi; Correia, 2025; Dijk; Dumbrava, 2013); and iv) the symbolic reconfiguration of procedural ritual, which necessitates new strategies to preserve judicial legitimacy and authority in deterritorialized contexts (Rowden; Wallace, 2018).
One of the premises of this research is that the virtualization of judicial proceedings is not merely an analogical transposition of traditional courtroom practices. Rather, it is a phenomenon that redefines the very categories of space, time, and interaction within the administration of justice (Costa; Lunardi; Guimarães, 2024). The adoption of video conferencing for court hearings has brought to the fore a range of issues requiring in-depth analysis, particularly regarding its impact on procedural guarantees and the effectiveness of due process of law (Contini, 2020).
2. Methods and Techniques
The research focused on lawyers, professionals who maintain direct contact with the parties and are best positioned to perceive the difficulties and advantages of virtual hearings. The research focused on two key geographical aspects: i) a region that could represent the broader realities of Brazil, a country characterized by a diverse social and economic landscape, and ii) ease of access for the researchers. Consequently, the research was conducted in the state of Maranhão, the second-largest state in the Northeast and the eighth largest in Brazil.
For data collection, a questionnaire was used that contained items addressing three aspects of judicial governance: resources and infrastructure, accessibility, and performance, with standardized responses on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).2 The instrument comprised a total of 26 items, of which 25 were closed-ended statements, and one was an open-ended question. All closed-ended items were mandatory to ensure complete responses, while the open-ended item was optional, allowing participants to provide additional insights. The statements were developed by the authors based on the theoretical framework and subjected to face validity testing through expert review by practicing lawyers to ensure clarity, comprehensibility, and alignment with the constructs under study.
The first section of the questionnaire gathered information about participants’ experiences with virtual hearings. In contrast, the second assessed the quality of audio and video, communication effectiveness, and sense of presence, using six statements. The third section focused on infrastructure and accessibility, including the availability of adequate equipment and internet connectivity, the punctuality of virtual hearings, the ease of accessing virtual rooms and electronic links, the quality of connectivity, and participants’ familiarity with technological resources. Sections 4 and 5 focused on analyzing criminal hearings for instruction and judgment conducted virtually, while Sections 6 and 7 focused on non-criminal hearings. In Section 8, respondents had the opportunity to evaluate the appropriateness of virtual hearings and suggest improvements. Finally, Section 9 gathered biographical and professional data from the participants, allowing for a more in-depth analysis of the responses.
This questionnaire was completed between December 2022 and April 2023 via Microsoft Forms by lawyers registered in the Federal Justice of Maranhão’s database and in the Maranhão State Bar Association (OAB-MA) database. Initially, the questionnaire was sent to 75 lawyers registered with the Federal Justice. At the same time, it was distributed by the OAB-MA, which ensured the dissemination to approximately 21,000 active lawyers in its database.
Additionally, support was sought from members of the OAB-MA’s Social Security Law and Prerogatives Committees to encourage the active participation of these professionals. Contact was also made with the presidency of the OAB’s Imperatriz Subsection, the second-largest city in Maranhão state and an important regional hub, to enhance the study’s representativeness. As a result of these strategies, 325 questionnaires were returned. After excluding respondents without prior experience with virtual hearings and those who did not fully complete the questionnaire, 250 valid questionnaires remained.
Items specifically referring to criminal hearings (14-21) were administered to all respondents as attitudinal measures. We used item 13 to distinguish respondents with direct experience in virtual criminal instruction/judgment hearings from those without such experience, including practitioners whose work centers exclusively on non-criminal cases (item 34). These items were retained for the full sample to preserve the instrument’s covariance structure. In interpreting criminal-specific findings, however, we report stratified descriptive summaries (experienced vs. non-experienced) and explicitly note that, for non-criminal practitioners, responses reflect perceptions rather than experience-based evaluations.
Data analysis was carried out using statistical techniques. Descriptive statistics were first used to organize and analyze the data. This examination aimed to evaluate information on participants’ biographical and professional data, as well as the number of hearings conducted. These measures, including mean, mode, median, range, and standard deviation, were used to understand the representative values of the variables and the distribution of these values around a central point. R software, in conjunction with RStudio, was utilized for this purpose.
After the descriptive analysis, an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed. This statistical technique is used to investigate patterns or latent relationships among multiple variables and determine if the information can be summarized into a smaller set of factors (Matos; Rodrigues, 2019).
According to Hair Jr. et al. (1998), the recommended sample size for EFA ranges from five to ten times the number of variables examined. Although the questionnaire comprised 37 items (variables), only the 25 closed-ended Likert-scale items designed to assess perceptions of virtual hearings (6-12, 14-21, and 23-32) were included in the analysis. Demographic and professional questions (1-5 and 34-37) were used solely for descriptive purposes, conditional items (13 and 22) were not suitable for factor analysis, and the open-ended item (33) was analyzed qualitatively. Consequently, the final sample of 250 respondents fully met the requirement of 125 to 250 observations. The EFA linked at least three items to each construct, matching the identified factors and following the recommendations of Hair Jr. et al. (1998).
As a result of the EFA, the initial 25 closed-ended Likert-scale items designed to assess perceptions of virtual hearings were reduced to 13, distributed across four factors: accessibility, performance, resources and infrastructure, and procedure, as discussed in the next section.
3. Results and Discussion
Of the 250 respondents who composed the final sample of the research, 75% work in non-criminal areas, while around 60% handle cases in State Courts. Regarding age, approximately 62% of the participants were under 39 years old, and 71% have been practicing law for 10 years or less. Furthermore, about 48% participated in 10 to 50 hearings, and more than 60% worked hearings in both federal and state jurisdictions.
In the initial phase of the EFA, the normality of the data was assessed, considering measures of asymmetry and kurtosis, as well as dispersion metrics. Although the data did not follow a normal distribution, this assumption is not critical for factor analysis; extraction methods such as Principal Axis Factoring rely on the correlation/covariance matrix and do not make strong distributional assumptions (Yong; Pearce, 2013). In practice, EFA can proceed with mild deviations from normality when the sample is adequate, and the diagnostics are strong (Yong; Pearce, 2013; Costello; Osborne, 2005). The correlation structure among the variables was examined, and sufficient intercorrelations were observed, with no excessive redundancy.
Substantial intercorrelations among the variables were observed, and the adequacy of the correlation matrix for factor analysis was supported by Bartlett’s sphericity test, which rejected the null hypothesis that the variables were uncorrelated. This result indicates that the data exhibit sufficient correlation to justify applying factor analysis. Furthermore, the suitability of the sample for factor extraction was assessed using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index, with an average value of 0.9101, indicating high data adequacy for the technique. This result not only attests to the quality of the data but also reinforces the reliability of the information obtained about the respondents’ perceptions of virtual hearings. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.9326 indicated a satisfactory level of scale consistency. Additionally, the Guttman lambda statistic (G6) was applied, further reinforcing internal consistency with a result of 0.9602. These metrics corroborate the reliability of the data and the validity of the results, as recommended by Hair Jr. et al. (1998).
For the extraction method, maximum likelihood (ML) was employed. Although ML formally assumes multivariate normality, it can still be applied in cases of mild non-normality when the sample size is sufficiently large, and the model is robust to non-normality. In this study, the high KMO value (0.91), the significance of Bartlett’s test, and the internal consistency indices (Cronbach’s α = 0.93; Guttman λ6 = 0.96) provided robust evidence that the data matrix was suitable for factor analysis. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that ML is more sensitive to non-normality than alternative methods such as Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) or Unweighted Least Squares (ULS). For the rotation of the factors, the Oblimin method was used, which is the standard for a non-orthogonal solution, implying correlation between the factors. The minimum factor loading was defined as 0.5, as suggested by Hair Jr. et al. (1998), representing the correlation between the variable and the factor.
After analyzing models with three and five factors, four factors were selected in the final solution. The option with four factors proved to be statistically more appropriate. This structure showed no cross-factor loadings, indicating a clear factor structure, with none of the items in the questionnaire loading significantly on more than one construct. However, 12 items from the questionnaire (06, 07, 11, 12, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 32) were not associated with any factor, a pattern that warrants further investigation in future studies. The removal of these 12 items does not reflect negatively on the questionnaire. On the contrary, instruments that explain a higher percentage of the variance of the phenomenon under study - in this case, virtual hearings - with a reduced number of items are more robust. Table 1 presents the four factors and the questionnaire items associated with each factor.
The first three factors provided in Table 1 - resources and structure, accessibility, and performance - are encompassed within the judicial governance model proposed by Akutsu and Guimarães (2015). However, the data collected indicated the emergence of a fourth factor, denoted “procedure.” The inclusion of this additional factor resulted in closer alignment with the adopted theoretical framework and with the findings of the study by Costa, Lunardi, and Guimarães (2024) involving judges. In summary, the factor analysis was conducted rigorously to ensure the accuracy and validity of the results.
The factor Resources and Structure is relevant when analyzing the judiciary’s ability to create an environment suitable for effective virtual hearings. This aspect encompasses an assessment of the available physical and technological infrastructure, the capacity to maintain information security, and the assurance of a user experience free from inconvenience, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Analysis of the data in Figure 1 indicates agreement among respondents regarding the structure and resources used in virtual hearings, regardless of their professional experience, area, or field of practice. Responses show that links are easy to find and virtual hearing rooms are accessible, showing efficient technology.
Internet connection quality during virtual hearings varies noticeably between lawyers with over 30 years of legal practice and those with less than two years. The average rating for connection quality in the first group is 3.91, and 4.61 in the second. These results enable analysis of the theoretical issues addressed by Vadell (2021). In a videoconferencing environment, the ability of all parties involved to present their perspectives and arguments is intrinsically linked to a high-quality internet connection, which is essential for the proper transmission of sound and image. Therefore, the divergence in perceptions of connection quality among professionals with different years of practice can be considered an influencing factor in the application of these principles.
Videoconferences alter the usual dynamics in the legal field, as each party may be located elsewhere, thereby altering the principle of concentration (Oliveira et al., 2023), which stipulates that all parties and elements of the case must be gathered in a single location. However, this modification is contingent on effective communication and the fulfillment of all procedural guarantees. Thus, the influence of connection quality on the effectiveness of hearings, especially among professionals with varying lengths of legal practice, poses a challenge to legal practice via videoconferencing.
When evaluating the research respondents’ fields of practice, subtle variations are evident in the “ease of locating the links for the hearings” and in the “quality of the internet connection.” Criminal lawyers report average scores of 4.56 and 4.06 for these factors, respectively, while those practicing in non-criminal fields report slightly different averages of 4.53 and 4.43. These results contrast with the findings of Alves (2022), who, in a survey of 865 lawyers in Minas Gerais state, identified significant structural difficulties, with more than 77% of respondents reporting problems establishing contact with the court. Only 14.3% confirming that the court provided an adequate location for virtual hearings (Alves, 2022).
These results show that efficient management of resources and structures is crucial for ensuring access to justice. Such characteristics include the organization of judges and court staff in structured careers, the availability of appropriate facilities and equipment, the existence of efficient judicial information systems, and the accumulation of knowledge within judicial organizations. Therefore, minimizing operational barriers and appropriately implementing organizational resources and structures supports the inclusion of all citizens, especially those in vulnerable social situations. In this regard, the research aligns with the findings of Moraes, Lunardi, and Correia (2024) and Araújo Filho et al. (2024).
Variables 14-17, which are linked to accessibility, show that respondents’ judicial backgrounds influence their evaluations. Professionals from outside state or federal courts, such as those in labor or electoral jurisdictions, rate virtual criminal hearings more highly in several areas. However, these assessments should be viewed in light of each professional’s primary practice area. Figure 2 presents these data, showing the average scores for each variable.
The respondents’ perceptions of defendants’ (item 14) and witnesses’ (item 15) participation in virtual hearings show high average scores across all categories. This finding aligns with the results of Cruz, Lunardi, and Guerreiro (2020), who highlight that, during the first phase of hearings, rogatory letters often lead to the appointment of ad hoc defenders unfamiliar with the defendant, thereby weakening the defense. In contrast, videoconferencing enables simultaneous participation by all procedural actors, regardless of their physical location, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of procedural guarantees. The defendant-judge interaction during interrogation (item 16) scored 3.85, suggesting it could be improved in the digital context.
Witness testimony management (item 17) maintains a strong average score of 4.5 in all categories. It is noteworthy that respondents with less than two years of legal practice provided highly favorable assessments, with an average ease-of-participation score of 4.83 for the defendant and witnesses. These data could be compared with Alves’s (2022) study. When examining virtual hearings, the author found that half of the lawyers did not confirm the identity of the parties, witnesses, and lawyers by the court, and 15.4% of participants indicated there were no safeguards to separate witnesses during testimony, highlighting vulnerabilities in the integrity of virtual oral evidence. These findings reinforce the importance of judicial intervention in ensuring access to justice, an inherent function of procedural law as highlighted by Cappelletti and Garth (1988). The development of an interactive digital environment that meets its objectives is an important aspect of ensuring efficient provision of judicial services and supporting accessibility.
The Performance factor is considered significant in the Judiciary (Borba et al., 2024). The analysis of variables 19-21 provides an overview of this factor in the context of virtual hearings, as shown in Figure 3.
The study found that participants reported virtual hearings as effective for collecting oral evidence in sensitive situations. Respondents with 16-20 years of legal experience rated virtual hearings for crimes against sexual dignity at an average of 4.67. However, when considering responses from all participants, regardless of years of legal experience, the standard deviation of 1.177 indicates a significant divergence in opinions, likely reflecting concerns about technology’s ability to capture crucial nuances in testimony.
Similarly, in cases of domestic violence against women, the effectiveness of virtual hearings in collecting evidence was rated positively, especially by respondents with less than two years and those with 21 to 30 years of legal experience, who attributed average scores of 4.79 and 4.67, respectively. Upon reviewing all responses, the standard deviation of 1.170 demonstrates considerable variation in perspectives, indicating diverse assessments of the suitability of virtual hearings for managing cases of this complexity and emotional intensity. Additionally, when considering the participation of children and adolescents in virtual hearings, there is a decrease in perceived effectiveness, particularly among respondents with over 30 years of legal practice, who gave an average rating of 3.25. Nevertheless, the overall evaluation remains positive, with an average score of 4.1.
These results diverge from judges’ perceptions of virtual hearings, as described by Costa, Lunardi, and Guimarães (2024). Judges’ concerns about the adequacy of the virtual environment for taking testimony, particularly in cases involving vulnerable victims or emotionally complex testimonies, suggest a more restrictive approach than that of lawyers. These concerns echo the arguments made by Dutra (2020) regarding the importance of ensuring the effectiveness of victim testimony, particularly in the context of domestic violence.
At the same time, judges recognize that virtual hearings can provide an additional channel for victims of domestic violence to seek protection and support, complementing discussions by Ugioni, Ferreira, and Chersoni (2022). This reinforces the need to consider the varied contexts and specific needs of each case within the judiciary when assessing the effectiveness of virtual hearings in collecting evidence.
The results indicated the inclusion of a fourth factor not anticipated by the theoretical model: “Procedure.” This result aligns with the research conducted by Costa, Lunardi, and Guimarães (2024), adding depth to the analysis. This factor, addressed in items 29 to 31, encompasses the rules and guidelines governing the conduct of virtual hearings. Evaluating the relevance of these guidelines and identifying areas for improvement are essential steps to ensure the effectiveness and fairness of the hearings.
The data provides insight into the preferences of economically disadvantaged individuals regarding participation in virtual hearings (item 29). In this regard, professionals with less than two years and between two and five years of legal experience reported no statistically significant differences in their perceptions, with averages of 3.93 and 4.22, respectively. Item 30 explores whether conducting a virtual hearing affects the judge’s assessment of the evidence. Respondents with less than two years of legal practice gave the highest average score (4.23), while those with more than 30 years of practice recorded the lowest average score (3.55). Finally, item 31 examines the influence of standardizing procedures on the conduct of virtual hearings across courts. The research participants, regardless of their professional experience, gave high average scores, ranging from 4.68 (for professionals with less than two years of experience) to 4.20 (for respondents with 21 to 30 years of practice).
The findings indicate that standardization of procedures across courts is highly valued for the effective development of virtual hearings. Additionally, there is a general perception that these hearings contribute to the judge’s evaluation of the evidence, although opinions vary on this point.
The questionnaire also included an open-ended item, allowing participants to freely express their opinions and suggestions regarding virtual hearings. The responses to this open-ended question were systematically analyzed, resulting in a word cloud - a visualization technique that highlights the frequency of key terms in participants’ answers - after a series of data preparation procedures. Initially, the responses were cleaned by removing common words, isolated characters, punctuation, and special characters. The words were standardized, and terms that did not add relevant information to the context were eliminated. Subsequently, the words were organized to highlight the frequency of occurrence, as shown in Figure 4.
As shown in Figure 4, terms such as “hearing,” “virtual,” “in-person,” and “telepresence” stood out significantly, forming the core of the discourse. However, it is important to emphasize that these expressions often served as the starting point for the participants’ opinions. In addition to these, other key terms emerged, such as “promptness,” “savings,” “communication,” “travel,” and “evidentiary phase.” These words are intrinsically linked to the theoretical components examined in the research: accessibility, performance, and resources and structure of the judiciary.
For example, the term “promptness” may be associated with performance, while “evidentiary phase” and “witnesses” refer to the production of proof. “Savings” and “travel,” on the other hand, can be related to accessibility. “Communication” is associated with both accessibility and performance, as effective communication is essential for the efficient conduct of proceedings. Lastly, words such as “telepresence,” “internet,” and “virtual” suggest aspects related to the resources and structure of the judiciary, demonstrating the importance of technology in conducting hearings.
Conclusions and Recommendations
This study offers several significant contributions to the topic of virtual hearings. Theoretical analysis indicates evidence supporting a four-factor framework (resources and structure, accessibility, performance, and procedure) for organizing legal professionals’ perceptions of virtual hearings. Empirically, it provides robust quantitative data on a topic that has been underexplored in the Brazilian context. Practically, the findings could be useful as a diagnostic tool for judicial managers, highlighting specific areas for improvement to enhance both judicial efficiency and access to justice.
Regarding Resources and Structure factor, respondents gave positive evaluations about the ease of locating the links and accessing virtual rooms, regardless of their professional experience, area, or field of practice. However, the quality of the internet connection was perceived differently between more experienced lawyers (average of 3.91 for those with more than 30 years of practice) and those with less experience (average of 4.61 for those with less than two years of practice).
When it comes to the Accessibility factor, survey participants gave high scores to defendants’ and witnesses’ participation in virtual hearings. However, the interaction between the defendant and the judge during interrogations received a lower average score (3.85), indicating room for improvement. Notably, lawyers with less than two years of practice rated the ease of participation of the defendant and witnesses more positively (4.83) in the virtual environment.
In terms of Performance, there was a favorable evaluation of the effectiveness of virtual hearings in collecting oral evidence in sensitive situations, such as crimes against sexual dignity (average of 4.67 for lawyers with 16-20 years of practice) and domestic violence (averages of 4.79 and 4.67 for lawyers with less than two years and 21-30 years of practice, respectively). However, when it came to hearing children and adolescents, a decrease in the perceived effectiveness was observed, particularly among lawyers with more than 30 years of practice (average of 3.25).
Regarding the Procedure factor, respondents gave positive evaluations of the standardization of procedures among judges, with high averages across years of practice. There was also a general perception that virtual hearings contribute to the judge’s appreciation of evidence. However, opinions varied, with higher ratings among lawyers with less than two years of practice (average of 4.23) and lower among those with more than 30 years of practice (average of 3.55).
Although the results indicated that respondents generally found it easy to locate links and access virtual rooms, variable internet quality emerged as an issue that directly impacts the effectiveness of the hearings. The research also showed that virtual procedural acts are changing how lawyers work and communicate.
Other notable findings are the positive handling of witness testimony and challenges in defendant-judge interaction during virtual interrogations. This aspect is particularly relevant in contexts where infrastructure limitations can compromise the spontaneity and effectiveness of collecting oral evidence, especially in sensitive cases such as crimes against sexual dignity and domestic violence. Therefore, the adequacy of the virtual environment for hearings involving vulnerable victims and children was identified as an area requiring improvement, emphasizing the need for stricter protocols to ensure the integrity of testimonies.
The virtualization of judicial procedures, therefore, does not constitute an absolute solution for access to justice. On the contrary, it highlights the need for investments in digital infrastructure, continuous training for legal professionals, and the development of public policies to advance digital inclusion. The results emphasize the importance of improving technological infrastructure for virtual hearings, ensuring the quality of the evidence collected and the security of participants. Such improvements are essential to optimizing judicial governance in the digital age and ensuring effective and fair access to justice. Additionally, adapting legal practice to this new context requires not only familiarity with technological tools but also a rethinking of argumentative strategies and the construction of the adversarial process in the digital environment.
However, it is important to acknowledge the study’s limitations, which also highlight clear avenues for future research. First, its geographical scope was confined to lawyers practicing in the state of Maranhão. While this region provides a relevant case study, its unique infrastructural and legal contexts call for caution when generalizing the findings to other Brazilian states. Second, the research focused exclusively on lawyers’ perceptions. This approach, while providing an in-depth view of a central group within the justice system, necessarily excludes the litigants’ perspective, who are the ultimate recipients of the service.
Finally, while the data revealed significant intergenerational differences between younger and more experienced lawyers, this study did not delve into a detailed interpretation of this phenomenon, as the focus remained on aspects of judicial governance. Therefore, future research should not only include the voices of litigants but also explore the sociological underpinnings of this generational gap, ideally expanding the investigation to other Brazilian regions to ensure broader validity.
References
- AKUTSU, Luiz; GUIMARÃES, Tomás de Aquino. Governança judicial: proposta de modelo teórico-metodológico. Revista de Administração Pública, Rio de Janeiro, v. 49, n. 4, p. 937-958, 2015.
-
ALVES, André Luiz; LUNARDI, Fabrício Castagna; CORREIA, Pedro Miguel Alves Ribeiro. Conciliation and Mediation in Digital Justice: Categories, Dimensions and Guide for Future Research. Information & Communications Technology Law, [s.l.], v. 35, n. 1, p. 93-108, Jun. 18, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2025.2514384.
» https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2025.2514384 - ALVES, Lucélia de Sena. As audiências de instrução e julgamento por videoconferência: uma análise empírica. Revista Eletrônica de Direito Processual, Rio de Janeiro, v. 23, n. 1, p. 835-851, 2022.
- ALMEIDA, Lília Bilati et al O retrato da exclusão digital na sociedade brasileira. Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, São Paulo, v. 2, n. 1, p. 55-67, 2005.
- ANDRAKA-CHRISTOU, Barbara et al A National Survey of Problem-Solving Court Staff Perceptions of In-Person Versus Virtual Hearings. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Bloomfield, v. 52, n. 1, p. 1-22, 2024.
-
ARAÚJO FILHO, José Gomes de et al Access to Justice and Digital Inclusion in the Amazon: Geographic Vulnerability and Riverside Communities. Virtual Economics, [s.l.], v. 7, n. 2, p. 31-49, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.34021/ve.2024.07.02(2).
» https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.34021/ve.2024.07.02(2) - ARVAY, Arcadio Vicente Herrera. El impacto de las audiencias virtuales en el debido proceso. Revista Jurídica Piélagus, Huila, v. 20, n. 1, p. 1-21, 2021.
-
BORBA, Livia Lúcia Oliveira; LUNARDI, Fabricio Castagna; GUIMARÃES, Tomas Aquino. Judge’s Managerial Competences: A Case Study in a High-Performance Court. Revista Direito GV, São Paulo, v. 20, p. 1-23, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-6172202410.
» https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-6172202410 - BOSLAND, Jason; TOWNEND, Judith. Open Justice, Transparency and the Media: Representing the Public Interest in the Physical and Virtual Courtroom. Communications Law, London, v. 23, n. 4, p. 183-202, 2018.
- CAPPELLETTI, Mauro; GARTH, Bryant. Acesso à justiça Porto Alegre: Sérgio Antonio Fabris Editor, 1988.
-
CONTINI, Francesco. Artificial Intelligence and the Transformation of Humans, Law and Technology Interactions in Judicial Proceedings. Law, Technology and Humans, Brisbane, v. 2, n. 1, p. 4-18, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.v2i1.1478.
» https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.v2i1.1478 -
CORREIA, Pedro Miguel Alves Ribeiro et al User-Centric Approach: Investigating Satisfaction with Portuguese Justice Services. Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas, Brasília, v. 14, n. 2, p. 439-463, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5102/rbpp.v14i2.9290.
» https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5102/rbpp.v14i2.9290 -
CHAVES JÚNIOR, José Eduardo de Resende Chaves. Elementos para uma nova teoria do processo em rede. Revista Direito UNIFACS, Salvador, n. 185, p. 2, 2015. Available at: https://revistas.unifacs.br/index.php/redu/article/view/3956 Accessed on: Apr. 13, 2025.
» https://revistas.unifacs.br/index.php/redu/article/view/3956 - COSTA, Rafael Lima da; LUNARDI, Fabrício Castagna; GUIMARÃES, Tomás de Aquino. Audiências virtuais e governança judicial: acesso à justiça e desempenho do judiciário. In: LUNARDI, Fabrício Castagna; GUIMARÃES, Tomás de Aquino; TORLIG, Eloisa Gonçalves da Silva (eds.). Acesso à justiça: pesquisas, políticas públicas e boas práticas São Paulo: Thomson Reuters, 2024. p. 189-214.
- COSTELLO, Anna B.; OSBORNE, Jason. W. Best Practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis: Four Recommendations for Getting the Most from Your Analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, v. 10, n. 7, p. 1-9, 2005.
-
CRUZ, Rogerio Schietti; LUNARDI, Fabrício Castagna; GUERREIRO, Mário Augusto Figueiredo de Lacerda. Tribunal do júri com apoio de videoconferência: pela ética do discurso. Consultor Jurídico, São Paulo, 29 jun. 2020. Available at: https://www.conjur.com.br/2020-jun-29/opiniao-tribunal-juri-apoio-videoconferencia/ Accessed on: Apr. 13, 2025.
» https://www.conjur.com.br/2020-jun-29/opiniao-tribunal-juri-apoio-videoconferencia/ -
DE REGIS, Madison. “Can You Hear Me Now?”: The Implications of Virtual Proceedings on Criminal Defendants’ Constitutional Rights. Maryland Law Review Online, Baltimore, v. 81, p. 71-94, 2022. Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/endnotes/79/ Accessed on: Sep. 2, 2025.
» https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/endnotes/79/ -
DIJK, Frans van; DUMBRAVA, Horatius. Judiciary in Times of Scarcity: Retrenchment and Reform. International Journal for Court Administration, [s.l.], v. 5, n. 1, p. 15, 2013. Available at: https://www.iacajournal.org/articles/10.18352/ijca.117/ Accessed on: Sep. 15, 2025.
» https://www.iacajournal.org/articles/10.18352/ijca.117/ - DUTRA, Thaís Ferreira. A audiência de fortalecimento e a desestruturação da violência doméstica e familiar contra a mulher: uma análise do potencial transformador da fala da vítima. 2020. Dissertação (Mestrado em Direito) - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Faculdade de Direito, Belo Horizonte, 2020.
-
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE (CEPEJ). Guidelines on Electronic Court Filing (e-filing) and Digitalization of Courts. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2021. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/e-filing-en/1680b2ca1c Accessed on: Mar. 23, 2026.
» https://rm.coe.int/e-filing-en/1680b2ca1c - FEENBERG, Andrew. Critical Theory of Technology Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
- FREITAS, Luiz Otávio Rezende de; LUNARDI, Fabrício Castagna; CORREIA, Pedro Miguel Alves Ribeiro. O homo digitalis na dadosfera: arquitetura das redes, máquinas de mentiras e violência desinformativa. Synesis, Petrópolis, v. 15, n. 4, p. 1-24, 2023.
- HAIR JR., Joseph et al Multivariate Data Analysis Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1998.
- HINO, Marcia Cassitas; CUNHA, Maria Alexandra. Adoption of Technology in the Legal Professionals’ Perspective. Revista Direito GV, São Paulo, v. 16, n. 1, e1952, 2020.
-
LINDSEY, Jaime. Open Justice, Participation and Materiality: Virtual Hearings and the Court of Protection. In: FERSTMAN, Carla; FAGAN, Andrew (eds.). COVID-19, Law and Human Rights: Essex Dialogues. A Project of the School of Law and Human Rights Centre. Colchester: University of Essex, 2020. p. 257-264. Available at: https://repository.essex.ac.uk/28002/1/COVID-19%5ELJ%20LAW%20%5EL0%20HUMAN%20RIGHTS%20-%20ESSEX%20DIALOGUES%20%201%20July%202020.pdf Accessed on: Mar. 13, 2026.
» https://repository.essex.ac.uk/28002/1/COVID-19%5ELJ%20LAW%20%5EL0%20HUMAN%20RIGHTS%20-%20ESSEX%20DIALOGUES%20%201%20July%202020.pdf - MATOS, Daniel Abud Seabra; RODRIGUES, Erica Castilho. Análise fatorial: perspectivas e desafios. Brasília: ENAP, 2019.
-
MORAES, Beatriz Fruet de; LUNARDI, Fabrício Castagna; CORREIA, Pedro Miguel Alves Ribeiro. Digital Access to Judicial Services in the Brazilian Amazon: Barriers and Potential. Social Sciences, [s.l.], v. 13, n. 2, p. 1-17, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13020113.
» https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13020113 -
MUNDFROM, Daniel J.; SHAW, Dale G.; KE, Tian Lu. Minimum Sample Size Recommendations for Conducting Factor Analyses. International Journal of Testing, [s.l.], v. 5, n. 2, p. 159-168, 2005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327574ijt0502_4.
» https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327574ijt0502_4 -
OLIVEIRA, António Mendes et al An Overview of the Portuguese Electronic Jurisdictional Administrative Procedure. Laws, [s.l.], v. 12, n. 5, p. 84, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/laws12050084.
» https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/laws12050084 -
POTIGUAR, Alex Lobato; IZYCKI, Murilo. As audiências virtuais no TRT8: um paralelo entre o uso da tecnologia e a exclusão digital. Revista do Tribunal Regional do Trabalho da 3ª Região, Belo Horizonte, v. 69, n. 107, p. 51-74, 2023. Available at: https://juslaboris.tst.jus.br/handle/20.500.12178/238757 Accessed on: September 2, 2025.
» https://juslaboris.tst.jus.br/handle/20.500.12178/238757 -
POSTIGO, Leonel Gonzalez. Las audiencias orales en formato virtual: un análisis comparado en la búsqueda de estándares para la justicia penal latinoamericana. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, Porto Alegre, v. 10, n. 2, e993, maio/ago. 2024. Available at: https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v10i2.993. Accessed on: Sep. 6, 2025.
» https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v10i2.993 -
ROWDEN, Emma; WALLACE, Anne. Remote Judging: The Impact of Video Links on the Image and the Role of the Judge. International Journal of Law in Context, [s.l.], v. 14, n. 4, p. 504-524, 2018. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-law-in-context/article/remote-judging-the-impact-of-video-links-on-the-image-and-the-role-of-the-judge/D395FCC43E27CE86C248538382C8DFEC Accessed on: Sep. 3, 2025.
» https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-law-in-context/article/remote-judging-the-impact-of-video-links-on-the-image-and-the-role-of-the-judge/D395FCC43E27CE86C248538382C8DFEC -
SILVA, Paulo Eduardo Alves; YEUNG, Luciana. The Dimensions of Courts’ Activities Digitalization: Perceptions of the Impacts from Litigation Lawyers’ Perspectives. Brazilian Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, [s.l.], v. 9, p. 1-40, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19092/reed.v10.688.
» https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.19092/reed.v10.688 - SILVA, Paulo Eduardo Alves da (coord.). Análise da gestão e funcionamento dos cartórios judiciais Brasília: Ministério da Justiça, 2007.
-
SOUSA, Marcos; KETTIGER, Daniel; LIENHARD, Andreas. E-justice in Switzerland and Brazil: Paths and Experiences. International Journal for Court Administration, [s.l.], v. 13, n. 2, p. 3, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.368.
» https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.368 - UGIONI, Lídia Piucco; FERREIRA, Eduardo Campos; CHERSONI, Felipe de Araújo. Mulheres com deficiência, acessibilidade e acesso à justiça: uma análise sob a ótica da Lei Maria da Penha (Lei 11.340/2006). In: TERRA, Bibiana; DIOTTO, Nariel; GOULARTE, Roana Funke (orgs.). Diálogos de gênero: perspectivas contemporâneas. Cruz Alta: Ilustração, 2022. p. 131-145.
- VADELL, Lorenzo Mateo Bujosa. Juicios virtuales y garantías procesales. In: MORENO, Débora Guerra (ed.). Constitución y justicia digital Bogotá: Grupo Editorial Ibáñez, 2021.
-
VOCHT, Dorris de; JACOBS, Pauline. Can Remote Trials be Fair Trials? Tilburg Law Review, Tilburg, v. 29, n. 2, p. 135-143, 2024. Available at: https://tilburglawreview.com/articles/10.5334/tilr.383 Accessed on: Sep. 4, 2025.
» https://tilburglawreview.com/articles/10.5334/tilr.383 -
YEUNG, Luciana; SILVA, Paulo Eduardo Alves da. A informatização dos tribunais brasileiros e as mudanças na burocracia judiciária: linearidade e instantaneidade observadas com a ajuda da metodologia do text mining Revista Direito GV, São Paulo, v. 20, e2424, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-6172202424.
» https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-6172202424 - YONG, An Gie, PEARCE, Sean. A Beginner’s Guide to Factor Analysis: Focusing on Exploratory Factor Analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, Ottawa, v. 9, n. 2, p. 79-94, 2013.
-
1
The authors acknowledge the financial support of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), Project “Public Policies and Practices for Management of Access to Justice in Brazil,” Tender CNPq 40/2022.
-
2
. The questionnaire data are publicly available in the SciELO Data of Revista Direito GV, at the following link: https://doi.org/10.48331/SCIELODATA.PIDGFO.
-
Como citar este artigo
COSTA, Rafael Lima da; LUNARDI, Fabrício Castagna; GUIMARÃES, Tomás de Aquino. Virtual Hearings, Efficiency, and Access to Justice: A Lawyers’ Perception Survey. Revista Direito GV, São Paulo, v. 22, e2614, 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-6172202614
-
Declaração de Disponibilidade de Dados
O conjunto de dados deste artigo está disponível no SciELO Dataverse da Revista Direito GV, no link: https://doi.org/10.48331/SCIELODATA.PIDGFO.
O conjunto de dados deste artigo está disponível no SciELO Dataverse da Revista Direito GV, no link: https://doi.org/10.48331/SCIELODATA.PIDGFO.
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.