AAL Insight: Online courts dividing the profession

Feb 10, 2018

Written By Jack J Collins, Editor, AllAboutLaw.co.uk

Almost a month after Lord Briggs' interim report regarding the opening of online courts, the debate shows no signs of slowing up. We examine what the different bodies are saying about the proposals.

The Civil Justice Council are the latest body to wade in on the debate regarding online courts for civil cases that Lord Briggs recommended in his interim report on civil justice.

Briggs suggested that an online court should be created, dealing with any claims up to £25,000 – providing access to legal aid without experiencing the costs of hiring lawyers.

The CJC have suggested that there needs to be a measured approach in the way that the online courts are adopted into the legal system.

They first reiterated their support for the idea of a three stage process: an automated service identifying the issues at hand; management of the case by specifically assigned online legal officers; followed by a resolution by judges, having been handed all the evidence.

However, they have also raised the issue of which cases should and shouldn’t be exempted from the online court, and stated that the argument over whether or not the online court should be compulsory was going to be a controversial one.

The CJC suggests that the online court would have to have a separate set of rules, wlst still being run in tandem with the main judicial structure of the UK.

“In any event, training and supervision of case officers, and the ability for parties to have decisions reviewed by judges, needs to be an integral part of processes,” the response concluded.

The issue has already begin to split the profession. The City of London Law Society has thrown its weight behind the proposals, stating in its response that whilst there were issues that needed to be ironed out, the online court could bring ‘huge benefits’ to the UK population.

They added that the lack of lawyer fees would be a huge step towards progress in ensuring access to justice for those individuals and small businesses who might otherwise struggle to afford the costs of legal fees.

In contrast, the Law Society President Jonathan Smithers rejected extending online court claims from £10,000 to £25,000, stating that: “If it works as intended, an online court may be able to reduce the need for specialist legal advice, but it will not remove that need altogether.

“It must not be used as a way of normalising a two-tier justice system where those who cannot afford professional legal advice find themselves at a disadvantage against an opponent who is wealthier and/or more knowledgeable about the system.”

The review is due for completion in July, and the debate shows no sign of stopping in the meantime, with so many questions about the function, extent and power of online courts to be decided before that date.

Commercial Insights