Why the Court Drew This Line
The rationale rests on a principle older than the smartphone: a court controls its own proceedings to protect its fairness, dignity, and order. New Jersey's electronic-device policy grew out of the recognition that devices capable of recording, transmitting, and broadcasting audio and video are now ubiquitous, and that the line between journalists and members of the public has blurred. Left unregulated, a room full of phones can chill candid testimony, expose vulnerable witnesses, enable improper coaching of witnesses who have not yet testified, and create unauthorized and potentially manipulated records that compete with the official transcript.
Workers' compensation hearings raise these concerns acutely. They routinely air sensitive medical histories, psychiatric diagnoses, addiction and pain-management records, immigration status, and financial details. An injured worker describing chronic pain, or a first responder testifying about job-related psychological trauma, is entitled to do so without fear that a clip will surface on social media. The Division's blanket rule, subject to case-by-case authorization, spares judges the need to police dozens of individual devices and gives every participant the same baseline expectation of confidentiality and decorum.
The enforcement teeth are real. The directive warns that anyone who uses a device to transmit, broadcast, record, or photograph a proceeding without approval may be held in contempt under Rule 1:10-1, punished by up to six months' imprisonment or a fine of up to $1,000 under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-3 and 2C:43-8, and charged with criminal contempt under N.J.S.A. 2C:29-9. The offending device itself may be seized and forfeited under N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1. These are not idle citations; they signal that the Division views unauthorized recording as a threat to the integrity of the tribunal rather than a mere breach of etiquette.
The Other Side: How Devices Help Litigation
A flat prohibition can obscure how indispensable electronic devices have become to modern practice. The same Guidelines that restrict recording expressly permit attorneys and litigants to use devices silently, to take notes, transcribe, consult filed documents, and send and receive communications. A lawyer can pull up an exhibit, check a statute, or message co-counsel without leaving the room. That functionality is now part of competent representation.
Authorized transmission is where the benefits are greatest. With the court's permission, live testimony can be carried to people who cannot physically attend: a treating physician testifying remotely, an injured worker too disabled to travel, an out-of-state witness, or an interpreter joining by video. New Jersey's own embrace of Microsoft Teams hearings, a fixture since the pandemic, is itself a form of authorized electronic transmission, and it has expanded access to justice for claimants who once had to choose between a medical appointment and a hearing date. The lesson is not that transmission is dangerous, but that it must be authorized, supervised, and recorded only through official channels, so that a single neutral, verifiable record governs.
Used well, devices also improve accuracy. Real-time transcription, screen-shared exhibits, and digital evidence presentation reduce ambiguity and speed proceedings. The directive does not reject technology; it channels it. The distinction the Division draws is between using a device as a tool of advocacy and using it to create an unauthorized broadcast or recording of the proceeding.
How Other States Handle the Question
There is no national uniform rule for electronic devices in workers' compensation hearings; each jurisdiction sets its own. Most follow New Jersey's basic model, a presumptive prohibition on recording or broadcasting, with discretion vested in the presiding judge to authorize exceptions.
Florida regulates the issue through its Rules of Workers' Compensation Procedure, which provide that the judge of compensation claims makes the official record by stenographic or electronic means at a party's request. Florida is also an all-party-consent state for recording conversations, so participants cannot lawfully make their own surreptitious recordings. New York has moved almost entirely to virtual hearings: since 2019, the Workers' Compensation Board has conducted hearings through its Virtual Hearing Center, generated official digital audio recordings (DAR) in MP3 format, and, effective February 2026, now requires claimants and lay witnesses to appear on video with their faces visible. The official recording is the Board's, not the parties.
California, like Florida, is an all-party-consent state that independently restricts the unauthorized recording of hearings. Across these jurisdictions, two themes recur: the tribunal controls the official record, and private recording is the exception that requires permission rather than the default. New Jersey's directive sits squarely within that mainstream.
The Federal Approach: Prohibition With Narrow Doors
Federal courts have long been the most restrictive. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 has barred the taking of photographs and the broadcasting of proceedings from the courtroom since 1946, and in the early 1970s the Judicial Conference of the United States extended a prohibition on broadcasting, televising, recording, and photographing to both criminal and civil cases. Individual district courts implement these policies through local rules and standing orders. General Order 26 in the Northern District of New York and Local Civil Rule 83.1 in the District of Columbia are typical, and many of them forbid recording even when a proceeding is being viewed remotely by video.
The doors that exist are narrow. The Judicial Conference allows recording for ceremonial proceedings such as naturalizations, and a small number of circuit and district courts have experimented with limited video access to civil arguments. The federal courts' rationale mirrors New Jersey's: preserving decorum, protecting the right to a fair trial, shielding jurors and witnesses, and maintaining a single authoritative record.
The constitutional contours were set by the Supreme Court. In Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965), the Court reversed a conviction obtained amid intrusive televised pretrial and trial coverage. Sixteen years later, in Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560 (1981), the Court held that the Constitution does not erect a per se bar against televising criminal trials, leaving states free to experiment under judicial supervision. More recently, in Reed v. Bernard (the Philadelphia Bail Fund litigation), No. 20-1632 (3d Cir. 2020), the Third Circuit held that the First Amendment right of access to attend proceedings does not include a right to make one's own audio recording of them. Together, these cases mark the boundaries: the public and press have a right to attend and report, but not an unfettered right to record.
The benefits and detriments of the federal posture cut both ways. The prohibition protects fairness, witness safety, and the primacy of the official record, and it prevents the spectacle that troubled the Court in Estes. The cost is transparency: critics argue that barring recordings keeps the public from independently verifying what happens in open court, particularly in high-volume, low-visibility proceedings. New Jersey's compensation directive reflects the same trade-off on a smaller stage, weighing the dignity and confidentiality of the hearing against the desire for an independent record, and comes down, as the federal courts do, in favor of a controlled, court-supervised record.
The Practical Takeaway
For New Jersey practitioners, the rule is simple to follow: keep devices on silent, use them for notes and communication, and never record, photograph, broadcast, or transmit a proceeding, in person or on Teams, without express authorization from the Director and Chief Judge of Compensation. If a client or witness needs to participate remotely, request authorized transmission in advance through the court rather than improvising. The directive is less a new restriction than a clear restatement of an enduring principle: the courtroom, wherever it convenes, belongs to the tribunal, and the record belongs to everyone, but only the official one.
Sources & Authorities
1. New Jersey Notice to the Bar, “Use of Recording Devices/Phones” (June 2, 2026)
4. Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965)
5. Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560 (1981)
6. Reed v. Bernard (Philadelphia Bail Fund), No. 20-1632 (3d Cir. 2020)
7. Fed. R. Crim. P. 53; U.S. Courts, History of Cameras and Broadcasting in Courts
8. Florida Rules of Workers' Compensation Procedure
9. New York Workers' Compensation Board, Digital Audio Recordings (DAR)
10. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Cameras and Technology in the Courtroom
About the Author
Jon L. Gelman of Wayne, NJ is the author of NJ Workers' Compensation Law (West-Thomson-Reuters) and co-author of Modern Workers' Compensation Law (West-Thomson-Reuters).
Blog: Workers' Compensation | LinkedIn: JonGelman | Substack: jongelman.substack.com | Blue Sky: jongelman@bsky.social
© 2026 Jon L Gelman. All rights reserved. | Attorney Advertising | Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Disclaimer | Download Adobe Reader
No comments:
Post a Comment