Justice reform 'needs more data' - lawtech experts

A lack of data about how the justice system functions is a barrier to hopes of improving services through technology, lawtech experts heard in London this week. ‘The justice system as a whole is massively under-empiricised,’ Dr Natalie Byrom (pictured) of the Legal Education Foundation told an event organised by the government-funded LawtechUK project. Because the system ‘counts cases not people’, little hard knowledge can be extracted about barriers to access to justice, Byrom said.

The event, held to mark the start of the LawtechUK initiative’s second phase, discussed technology’s role in the twin challenges of improving access to justice and adding to the competitive strength of the UK’s legal sector. In an opening address, justice minister Mike Freer MP emphasised the second challenge, saying lawtech has a ‘starring role’.

However Alexandra Lennox, director of LawtechUK, suggested that the two aims might not be mutually exclusive.

The first phase of the LawtechUK programme, which aims to bring together innovators, regulators and other interested parties, was run by the government-backed ‘growth platform’ TechNation. The Ministry of Justice is currently procuring a ‘delivery partner’ to take on the work for two years from next April.

It will have just over £3m to spend on the work, out of the £4m in second-phase funding announced by the MoJ last August. Several attendees questioned whether the initiative had the resources to improve access to justice. ‘Bearing in mind the numbers of people we’re talking about, [£4m] feels like just scratching the surface,’ said Fiona Rutherford, chief executive of campaign group Justice. 

Veteran legal technology futurist Professor Richard Susskind suggested a major role of the initiative should be to maintain the global competitiveness of England and Wales as a jurisdiction. ‘We’re seeing startup countries wanting to compete with England in dispute resolution,’ he said. ‘We need to ensure that English law is up to date and responding to change and competitive pressure.’

Susskind also observed that the commercial lawtech sector is less radical in its ambitions than sometimes assumed. His research on global lawtech startups for a coming book found ‘three to four thousand’ around the world, but they were ‘not particularly disruptive’. About half were set up to sell efficiency to existing law firms rather than carving out new ways to run legal services, he said.

The End of Lawyers? author also predicted that radical upheaval in the profession, if it ever comes, will not originate in the lawtech sector. ‘Maybe in framing ourselves in the world of lawtech, we’re limiting our options.’

Sophia Adams Bhatti, global head of purpose and impact at City firm Simmons & Simmons, warned about complacency among firms and policymakers in the face of international competition. ‘Now is the time to buckle down and see the commitment through,’ she said.

This article is now closed for comment.