The Florida Supreme Court is seeking public comment on a proposed civil procedure rules change that would require attorneys to have their computer cameras on at all times during remote depositions. While all jurisdictions in the United States permit, or officially encourage, remote depositions, few prescribe in detail how remote depositions will be conducted, leaving those matters for counsel to work out themselves.
The Florida Supreme Court’s proposed ‘cameras on’ rule reflects a growing consensus that visibility safeguards the integrity of remote depositions—ensuring accurate transcripts, deterring misconduct, and aligning with ABA best practices.
The Florida high court’s proposal appears to reflect the view that “cameras on” should be the default arrangement in the Sunshine State.
The proposed rules change would add a new subsection (f) to Rule 2.530 of the Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration. If adopted, Rule 2.530(f) would provide:
f. Deposition Conducted by Audio-Video Communication Technology. During a deposition conducted by audio-video communication technology, the deponent, the deponent’s attorney, and the attorney questioning the deponent must be visible at all times unless otherwise agreed by the parties or ordered by the court.
Commentary accompanying the proposal, drafted by the Florida Supreme Court’s Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration Committee, suggested that the purpose of the rules change is to safeguard the integrity of the remote deposition process. According to the committee, “without a judge presiding, bad behavior can occur during virtual depositions such as witness coaching or other interference.”
That may be, but there are other good reasons for imposing a “cameras on” rule for remote deposition participants. Heather Suarez, Courts Committee Chair for the Florida Court Reporters Association, wrote a letter to the rules drafters earlier this year pointing out that “cameras on” helps court reporters produce an accurate deposition transcript.
“Although verbatim court reporters are trained listeners, we also take visual cues from speakers, such as speechreading, especially with heavily accented individuals,” Suarez wrote. “In addition, in proceedings with multiple participants appearing remotely, being able to clearly observe the speaker ensures that the speaker does not appear as an unidentified speaker or as the wrong speaker in a transcript.”
Litigation experts in the American Bar Association also favor a “cameras on” requirement for remote depositions. In Resolution 505 Best Practices for Remote Depositions, approved Feb. 6, 2023, by the ABA House of Delegates, the authors noted that, while remote depositions “can be a valuable tool to save expense and avoid unnecessary inconvenience to lawyers, their clients, and all who participate in the deposition process,” some provision should be made to safeguard them from improper influences. Regarding cameras, the ABA had this to say:
Ensure that the remote conference platform provides satisfactory views of the court reporter, other counsel, and the witness to allow for visual observations like a hearing or trial. If persons other than the witness and counsel defending the deposition attend in-person with the witness, the attorney conducting the examination should consider requesting or stipulating in advance of the deposition that all in attendance (including any other attorneys, paralegals, or staff) also be required to be on camera.
A “cameras on” requirement can be found in some court-authored remote deposition orders around the country. And in Florida, the Florida State Bar’s Best Practices for Remote Court Proceedings guidance states that, during a remote deposition, “one video camera shall show the witness and at least one video camera shall show the witness’s counsel.”
Finally, in the absence of a court rule or order on the subject of cameras, parties in civil litigation are always able to write their own set of detailed deposition rules in a remote deposition protocol.
The Florida Supreme Court is accepting comments from attorneys licensed in any state. Comments are due Sept. 30, 2025. Commenters should reference In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.530 and 2.540 (Case No. SC2025-0725) when filing.
