Review: Virtual Hearing Platforms — Which One Should Your Chambers Use?

Virtual hearings are now a staple in civil and family proceedings. Choosing the right platform affects the fairness of hearings, the efficiency of advocacy and the ability to manage exhibits and evidence. This review compares five platforms commonly used by courts and chambers in 2026.

Evaluation criteria

We assessed platforms using:

• Audio/video reliability and latency
• Evidence handling: bundling, annotation and screen sharing
• Security and access controls
• Judge and advocate usability
• Integration with court listings and document management

Platforms reviewed

1. CourtConnect Pro

Strengths: Official court integrations, robust e-bundling and judge controls.
Weaknesses: Less intuitive UI for lay clients.

2. HearNow

Strengths: Clean UI, excellent low-bandwidth performance and breakout rooms for private conferences.
Weaknesses: Limited court integrations.

3. LegalZoom Hear

Strengths: Annotation tools and third-party interpreter modules.
Weaknesses: Premium pricing for advanced features.

4. TribunalStream

Strengths: Built for tribunals with efficient queue management.
Weaknesses: Not ideal for multi-day trials with complex exhibits.

5. SecureCourt

Strengths: High-level encryption and role-based access controls suitable for sensitive hearings.
Weaknesses: Conservative UX and additional setup time required.

Evidence handling and exhibits

Platforms with integrated e-bundles and annotation tools dramatically reduce time wasted during hearings. CourtConnect Pro and LegalZoom Hear led in this area by offering synchronized exhibit viewing, sticky annotations and instant navigation to cited pages.

Judge and advocate experience

Judges prefer platforms that simplify control over speaking order, manage links to exhibits and minimise technical interruptions. HearNow’s simplicity reduces cognitive overload for judges and lay participants, while CourtConnect Pro offers powerful but slightly more complex controls.

Accessibility and support for vulnerable parties

Accessibility features such as live captions, sign language interpreter windows and private breakout rooms are essential. Platforms that provide these features built-in rather than via third-party integrations offer a smoother experience for vulnerable witnesses and litigants in person.

Security and compliance

Platforms must ensure encrypted streams, secure recording policies and robust authentication. SecureCourt and CourtConnect Pro offer the most comprehensive compliance features, including regional data residency options and granular audit trails.

Cost considerations

Costs vary. Courts often negotiate enterprise agreements; private chambers should budget for per-hearing fees, license costs for advocates and potential training expenses. Expect higher costs for platforms with advanced evidence tools and private cloud options.

Recommendations

For heavy court-integrated practice: CourtConnect Pro
For chambers prioritising simplicity and reliability: HearNow
For hearings with sensitive evidence and high compliance needs: SecureCourt
For interpreters and annotation-focused use: LegalZoom Hear

Practical tips for adoption

• Run mock hearings to train advocates and court staff
• Prepare exhibit indices in advance and test access permissions
• Provide lay participants with simple user guides and a technical helpline

Conclusion

Virtual hearing platforms are mature but vary widely in focus. Chambers should choose based on their primary needs—court integration, security, simplicity or evidence handling—and invest in training to ensure smooth adoption. A considered choice improves fairness, reduces delay and supports effective advocacy.