Online courts are not a panacea, says Law Society

The proposed online court is not a universal remedy for the challenges facing the court system, the Law Society has argued.

In his recent interim report of the civil courts structure, Lord Justice Briggs proposed an online court for lower value claims and case management being moved from judges to case officers.

In his root-and-branch review of the courts, Briggs LJ said the concept of the online court was 'wholly dependent on the introduction and imaginative use of IT' and 'behavioural and cultural change'.

Submitting comments to Briggs LJ before the completion of his final report, the Law Society argued that while innovation is essential, any new court system should be thoroughly tested before being rolled out to the public.

The president of the society, Jonathan Smithers, said: 'Experience has shown that making changes to one part of the justice system may have unintended consequences.'

Smithers cautioned that, even if it works as intended, the online court would only reduce the need for specialist legal advice and not remove the 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,' he added.

Commenting on the recommendation to create an online court for claims up to £25,000, Chancery Lane said that while it supports the idea in principle, there were concerns over access to justice.

'We have significant concerns that the proposed online court may exclude people's ability to access legal advice for cases up to £25,000 in value,' said Smithers. 'This is more than the average annual household income in this country.

'People seeking to recover monies due and owing to them will still need legal advice on their claim as well as assistance with navigating the process, online or otherwise. Many cases will be too complex for users to lodge a claim on an online court.'

Smithers explained that those with substantial claims may feel uncomfortable using an online platform. 'And let's not forget that almost a quarter of the population still has no online access,' he explained.

'While the online court may not require advocacy, there will still be a need for legal advice to ensure that everyone, including the vulnerable, can access justice,' Smithers continued

'We will strongly oppose any approach that reduces access to justice in England and Wales, rendering it available only to those who can afford it, that have IT facilities and who are IT literate.'

The Law Society also cautioned against further changes to the process of civil justice at a time when the impact of earlier changes - including a review by Lord Justice Brooke in 2009 and changes to the funding of litigation brought about by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) - have not yet been assessed.

'The proposed expansion of the role of court officers should be subject to the findings of the County Court Legal Advisers Pilot Scheme, which are due in the autumn,' said Smithers. 'Any change to court officers' roles should be piloted and subject to evaluation.'

Smithers's comments backs up those of the chairman of the Bar, Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC, who has also argued that while technology has the potential to reduce the cost and complexity of the court system, a removal of lawyers from civil proceedings might not achieve the desired objectives.