{"id":2426,"date":"2015-01-13T10:43:26","date_gmt":"2015-01-13T10:43:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.infolaw.co.uk\/newsletter\/?p=2426"},"modified":"2015-01-14T09:07:54","modified_gmt":"2015-01-14T09:07:54","slug":"access-to-justice-through-technology","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.infolaw.co.uk\/newsletter\/2015\/01\/access-to-justice-through-technology\/","title":{"rendered":"Access to justice through technology"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Richard Miller, Head of Legal Aid at The Law Society, said of our Access to Justice Campaign, launched in September 2104<\/a>, \u201cI am very keen that [it should] include guidance to our members about what they can do to make services more affordable to clients; and that, of course, includes how they can use technology either to deliver old services in new ways or to find new services to provide.\u201d<\/p>\n

Neither the scale of the challenge nor its seriousness should be underestimated. On the one hand, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (Laspo) Act 2012 sliced \u00a3330m out of the annual civil legal aid budget; on the other, according to Oxfam, one in five of the UK population lives below the poverty line. This is a toxic combination for us all, not just those, mainly recipients of help but also providers of services, who are directly affected. In the Law Society\u2019s view, in the absence of access to justice, people are unable to have their voice heard, exercise their rights, challenge discrimination or hold decision-makers to account. Access to justice is the foundation of a fair and democratic society and an attack on those foundations is an attack on us all.<\/p>\n

Can technology really<\/em> make a difference?<\/p>\n

Exciting times<\/h3>\n

In their report Face to Face Legal Services and Their Alternatives: Global Lessons from the Digital Revolution<\/em> (January 2014) Roger Smith and Alan Paterson explore \u201cthe extent to which telephone \u201d\u02dchotlines\u2019 and internet-based systems may replace face to face publicly funded legal services in the future\u201d. The two year study, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, was carried out against the backdrop of the financial crisis and swingeing expenditure cuts to the legal aid budget. The report has since been updated in a series of papers which are summarised and published in full on the Legal Education Foundation website (see Digital Delivery of Services to People on Low Incomes<\/em><\/a>).<\/p>\n

Initially Face to Face<\/em> strikes an optimistic note that is surprising. The authors describe the deployment of new technology in the delivery of legal services as \u201cdizzyingly rampant\u201d and suggest that because of this, and despite financial cutbacks, we are living in an \u201cexciting time with wonderful possibilities\u201d. Amongst the possibilities that have become realities they cite apps for road accident incidents; a wealth of free information and assistance driven by the opportunity to garner more complex and lucrative cases (described as \u201cwinnowing\u201d or \u201cgleaning\u201d provision); legal aid authority websites with basic legal information and advice, document assembly packages, virtual law firms and online dispute resolution. The Dutch Legal Aid Board\u2019s Rechtwijzer (conflict resolution guide) site is singled out for attention. It covers consumer law and relationship breakup in depth with less comprehensive coverage of employment, tenancy and administrative law. In the opinion of the authors it shows \u201cclear signs of being a game changer and far in advance of anything else in the world in terms of its dynamic and client-centred approach.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, Smith and Paterson recognise the limitations of their study, in particular their lack of primary research and the inevitable difficulty of comparing like-with-like in conducting international comparative studies. They recognise that the development of a personal relationship between an adviser and a vulnerable client can often be necessary to progress a matter effectively (the need for \u201cwarm bodies\u201d to supplement cold technology) and they acknowledge that technology \u201cmay simply underline the exclusion of those already the most marginal\u201d. They even sound a note of caution about Rechtwijzer, pointing out that \u201cwe do not yet know how the current site will be rated by those using it in practice.\u201d They end with a final warning. \u201cThe fate of NHS Direct \u201d\u00a6 stands as a silent ghost spoiling the banquet of anyone celebrating the wonderful future predicted by new technology.\u201d<\/p>\n

In Digital Delivery<\/em> Smith retains the mix of excitement and realism that characterised Face to Face<\/em> and notes that since January there have been \u201csignificant developments\u201d and innovation driven by \u201cmoney allied to imagination and technological opportunity\u201d. The outcomes from these developments are an increasingly professional, interactive, mobile and integrated internet environment for legal services.<\/p>\n

The role of the internet<\/h3>\n

Smith has put forward nine propositions concerning the internet and access to justice:<\/p>\n