Outdated practices undermine justice system

In an era dominated by AI and the digitisation of services, the persistence of a diesel van at R Costings, a leading costs law firm, epitomises the outdated practices still entrenched in the UK’s justice system. For 250 days each year, a silver Vauxhall shuttles across the roads of England and Wales, carrying essential bundles of legal documents that the system still demands be moved physically from law firms to courts and barristers' chambers. Over the past year, the van's full-time driver has clocked an astonishing 130,000 miles, travelling from Plymouth to Newcastle and even reaching Scotland.

Paul Reason, Managing Director of R Costings, remarks that “our van is a sign of a sector that has still not caught up with modern times.” He stresses that the legal system remains one of “Britain’s last major institutions which hasn’t gone digital.” This lack of progress is not just a minor inconvenience; it poses a significant problem that repercussions clients and firms alike while challenging the very essence of justice.

The backlog crisis facing the Crown Court, which has soared to a staggering 79,600 cases—and is expected to exceed 100,000 by 2028—illustrates the system’s dire state. Additionally, the delays hitting the Court of Protection have left bills for financial and welfare decisions in limbo for as long as 15 months. Reason highlights, “every week a matter sits unresolved, and costs accumulate.” Delayed cases create a financial burden all while law firms grapple with the mounting costs tied to these delays, ultimately affecting the clients who await resolution.

While some reforms are underway within the courts—such as the abolition of certain jury trials and increased budgets—R Costings believes that the implementation of secure legal technology could enhance efficiency and reduce delays significantly. Reason notes that, despite some progress in digital adoption, “even those which accept e-filing have a cap on documents over 250 pages,” a limitation that he argues undermines the whole purpose of going digital. Judges still expect physical documentation, often expressing relief upon receiving it, indicating an institutional reluctance to fully embrace a digital future.

Although R Costings has no plans to retire its van, there is a growing recognition that this practice is increasingly outdated. Paul Reason concludes with a poignant remark that encapsulates the frustration felt within the industry: “we shouldn’t still be doing this. I certainly don’t want the van to still be doing this in ten or twenty years’ time. But right now, the state of the system means it’s not going anywhere.” The reliance on antiquated methods in a digital age paints a troubling picture of a justice system in desperate need of reform.