 |
| Daniel J. Escott |
Rather than achieving its full promise, technology often appears to reinforce institutional priorities while marginalizing end-user needs. This article argues that the fundamental reason for this stagnation is a misplaced focus: instead of prioritizing the value of technology to legal institutions, we must shift towards a user-centered paradigm that measures technological success by its impact on individuals navigating the justice system.
Institution-centric approach: Efficiency without justice
The legal profession and courts have historically adopted technology with an emphasis on institutional efficiency. Case management software, electronic filing systems, and emerging legal technologies like bespoke artificial intelligence tools primarily serve the needs of the judiciary, law firms, and government agencies by reducing administrative burdens. While these tools streamline legal processes, they do little to enhance meaningful access to justice for individuals, particularly those who are self-represented or from marginalized or vulnerable communities. Surveys
Ilya Lukichev: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
The Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice (CIAJ) 2023 Report on Canadian Judges Concerning Technology confirms this trend. Judges generally acknowledge the benefits of digitalization in court operations but remain skeptical about its impact on fairness and procedural justice. Many believe that remote hearings, for example, disproportionately disadvantage self-represented litigants and those with limited digital literacy. This dissonance underscores the central flaw in current technological adoption: legal technology is being designed and implemented primarily to optimize institutional workflow rather than to improve the justice experience for its users.
Reality of legal need: Insights from survey data
A comprehensive review of recent survey data on justice, its administration, and access to it highlights persistent gaps in legal service accessibility. Key findings include:
- High unmet legal needs: The 2023 Saskatchewan Legal Needs Survey identified that between 34 per cent and 52 per cent of respondents report experiencing a serious legal problem within a two-to-three-year period, yet many do not seek formal legal assistance due to cost and complexity. The Everyday Legal Problems and the Cost of Justice in Canada survey report similarly identified that almost half (48.4 per cent) of Canadians over 18 will experience at least one civil or family justice problem over any given three-year period.
- Disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations: Indigenous communities, low-income individuals, and those in remote areas face heightened barriers to accessing legal resources. The 2022-23 Alberta Legal Needs Survey identified that Indigenous peoples are one of the top demographics in need of legal services, but currently lack access to services or are not being adequately served. The Everyday Legal Problems and the Cost of Justice in Canada survey report also identified that rural and remote populations often face particular and unique challenges in accessing justice.
- Technological barriers: While online legal information portals exist, many users struggle to navigate them effectively, highlighting the need for better digital literacy support. An Everyday Legal Needs 2020 Survey by Legal Aid British Columbia identified that low-income and vulnerable communities found online resources less effective at providing legal assistance. Similarly, the CIAJ’s 2023 Report on Canadian Judges Concerning Technology identified that the most important factors affecting the impact of technology on access to justice were: quality of Internet access for the public, digital literacy of lawyers, digital literacy of litigants, and availability of internet and audio-video technology.
These findings reinforce that while technology has made legal institutions more efficient, it has not fundamentally altered the user experience in a way that democratizes justice and access to it.
A user-centric technological paradigm
To shift the focus of legal technology from institutional efficiency to user empowerment, several key reforms are needed:
1. Design for the end-user, not the institution: Legal tech solutions should be developed based on extensive consultations with end-users, particularly self-represented litigants and those with lived experiences of legal hardship. User-centered design principles must be embedded into every stage of technological development.
2. Address digital literacy and accessibility: Courts and legal service providers must ensure that technological interfaces are intuitive and accessible. This includes multilingual support, plain-language explanations, and integration with community-based legal navigators who can provide assistance.
3. Measure success by access, not just efficiency: Traditional performance metrics for legal technology focus on caseload processing times and cost savings. Instead, we should evaluate success based on user engagement, resolution satisfaction, and equity in legal outcomes.
4. Invest in legal technology that expands representation: AI-driven tools that enhance legal guidance, self-help portals tailored to non-lawyers, and hybrid models combining technology with human legal aid support can significantly bridge existing access gaps.
5. Regulate to ensure ethical and equitable use: Policymakers must establish governance frameworks to prevent the digital divide from exacerbating legal inequalities. Ethical AI principles, transparency requirements, and public oversight mechanisms should guide the deployment of legal technologies.
2. Address digital literacy and accessibility: Courts and legal service providers must ensure that technological interfaces are intuitive and accessible. This includes multilingual support, plain-language explanations, and integration with community-based legal navigators who can provide assistance.
3. Measure success by access, not just efficiency: Traditional performance metrics for legal technology focus on caseload processing times and cost savings. Instead, we should evaluate success based on user engagement, resolution satisfaction, and equity in legal outcomes.
4. Invest in legal technology that expands representation: AI-driven tools that enhance legal guidance, self-help portals tailored to non-lawyers, and hybrid models combining technology with human legal aid support can significantly bridge existing access gaps.
5. Regulate to ensure ethical and equitable use: Policymakers must establish governance frameworks to prevent the digital divide from exacerbating legal inequalities. Ethical AI principles, transparency requirements, and public oversight mechanisms should guide the deployment of legal technologies.
By implementing these reforms, legal technology can move beyond merely enhancing institutional efficiency to truly serving those who need justice and access to it the most. A user-centered approach ensures that technology aligns with the realities of legal need, prioritizing accessibility, comprehension, and meaningful participation in legal processes. When legal technology is designed with the user at its core, it has the potential to bridge longstanding gaps in justice and access to it, empowering individuals rather than reinforcing systemic barriers.
Reclaiming the promise of legal technology
Legal technology holds immense potential to enhance access to justice, but only if its implementation prioritizes the needs of users rather than the efficiency of legal institutions. By shifting the discourse from a system-centric to a user-centric framework, we can harness digital innovation to truly make justice more inclusive and equitable. This requires a recalibration of legal technology policies, a commitment to user-oriented design, and ongoing empirical assessments of technology’s real-world impact on access to justice. Without such a shift, the legal profession risks perpetuating a paradox: a more efficient system that remains fundamentally inaccessible to those who need it most.
Daniel J. Escott is a research fellow at the Artificial Intelligence Risk and Regulation Lab and the Access to Justice Centre for Excellence. He is currently pursuing an LL.M. at Osgoode Hall Law School, and holds a J.D. from the University of New Brunswick and a BBA from the Memorial University of Newfoundland.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.