unsustainable costs of legal presentation and the increase in self-presentation, as well
as the growing importance of conflict prevention instead of conflict resolution.
2
Dispute resolution technology forms a diverse field and different applications
often overlap, which means that distinctions between courtroom applications, legal
tech and ODR become impossible to maintain. Also, the field is continuously
evolving and descriptions of current state of the art applications will without fail be
outdated within couple of years. However, the development of dispute resolution
technology is not linear or progressing similarly in different countries.
3 Instead,
different court practices and needs of the stakeholders call for different solutions
and one system design does not necessarily follow different work methods and
cultures elsewhere.
Recently, civil justice reforms have introduced several technology applications
in the public courts that aspire to improve access to justice. Launched in 2014,
the Dutch Rechtswijzer portal is one of the forerunners of public dispute
resolution technology. The online platform designed for self-presenting laypersons facing divorce, unemployment, consumer protection or other private law
issues provides information and diagnostic tools, step-by-step plans for conflict
resolution, negotiation and communication tools, and interfaces to payment
systems and e-identification. Empirical studies show that users generally considered their experience with the website positive and the information provided
trustworthy.
4 The findings underlined the importance of access to information as
most visitors in divorce cases stated a need for problem-focused help rather than
emotional or social help.
5 Whereas the Dutch initiative focuses on end-user
experience, the Finnish justice reform AIPA initiated in 2010 adopts a more
court-based approach to digitalise the working methods in the court system while
simultaneously creating an extensive case management system with decision
support tools.
6 The case management system is designed for all court cases
ranging from precautionary measures and petitions to criminal and civil procedure. The system has interfaces with legal aid offices, enforcement officials, and
prosecutors to enable swift case flow and in the future will also include a citizen
portal.
7 In turn, the Civil Resolution Tribunal in British Columbia provides an
ODR tool backed up with the public court system for litigants in small claims or
strata disputes.
8 The tribunal strives for user-centred design of early ODR for
activating people in solving their disputes.
Dispute resolution technology is discussed also outside civil litigation. In
Canada, fines could soon be contested and parking ticket disputes resolved
through online platform.
9 However, adoption of dispute resolution technology,
especially in criminal cases, has strong ethical implications for the administration
of justice, as the recent debate on the feasibility of the decision support tool
Northpointe Compas demonstrates. The software that applies artificial intelligence to find renewable patterns in vast amounts of statistics is used in courts in
Wisconsin, US, at sentencing to assess a defendant’s risk of recidivism. As it is
unclear how the software produces its assessment and claims have been made of
its ethnic bias,
10 a defendant sentenced with the algorithm contested its use
based on due process. However, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin held that due
Emerging crisis 61
as the growing importance of conflict prevention instead of conflict resolution.
2
Dispute resolution technology forms a diverse field and different applications
often overlap, which means that distinctions between courtroom applications, legal
tech and ODR become impossible to maintain. Also, the field is continuously
evolving and descriptions of current state of the art applications will without fail be
outdated within couple of years. However, the development of dispute resolution
technology is not linear or progressing similarly in different countries.
3 Instead,
different court practices and needs of the stakeholders call for different solutions
and one system design does not necessarily follow different work methods and
cultures elsewhere.
Recently, civil justice reforms have introduced several technology applications
in the public courts that aspire to improve access to justice. Launched in 2014,
the Dutch Rechtswijzer portal is one of the forerunners of public dispute
resolution technology. The online platform designed for self-presenting laypersons facing divorce, unemployment, consumer protection or other private law
issues provides information and diagnostic tools, step-by-step plans for conflict
resolution, negotiation and communication tools, and interfaces to payment
systems and e-identification. Empirical studies show that users generally considered their experience with the website positive and the information provided
trustworthy.
4 The findings underlined the importance of access to information as
most visitors in divorce cases stated a need for problem-focused help rather than
emotional or social help.
5 Whereas the Dutch initiative focuses on end-user
experience, the Finnish justice reform AIPA initiated in 2010 adopts a more
court-based approach to digitalise the working methods in the court system while
simultaneously creating an extensive case management system with decision
support tools.
6 The case management system is designed for all court cases
ranging from precautionary measures and petitions to criminal and civil procedure. The system has interfaces with legal aid offices, enforcement officials, and
prosecutors to enable swift case flow and in the future will also include a citizen
portal.
7 In turn, the Civil Resolution Tribunal in British Columbia provides an
ODR tool backed up with the public court system for litigants in small claims or
strata disputes.
8 The tribunal strives for user-centred design of early ODR for
activating people in solving their disputes.
Dispute resolution technology is discussed also outside civil litigation. In
Canada, fines could soon be contested and parking ticket disputes resolved
through online platform.
9 However, adoption of dispute resolution technology,
especially in criminal cases, has strong ethical implications for the administration
of justice, as the recent debate on the feasibility of the decision support tool
Northpointe Compas demonstrates. The software that applies artificial intelligence to find renewable patterns in vast amounts of statistics is used in courts in
Wisconsin, US, at sentencing to assess a defendant’s risk of recidivism. As it is
unclear how the software produces its assessment and claims have been made of
its ethnic bias,
10 a defendant sentenced with the algorithm contested its use
based on due process. However, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin held that due
Emerging crisis 61