with their traditional equivalents, the role of technology diminishes. This may
cause the false perception that technology’s impact on dispute resolution is minor
at best, which does not reflect the technological disruptiveness already affecting
dispute resolution. As some applications of legal technology (e.g. access services)
do not easily follow this doctrinal distinction, it is suggested here that we abandon
the terminology of courtroom technology and ODR for dispute resolution
technology to emphasise their overlap and convergence.
19
The delicate balance between reification of technology and taking technology
seriously is hard to maintain. Also the danger of imposing universal invariables is
looming, as it is tempting to define dispute resolution technology through
generalisations that downplay the need for case-by-case analysis. Instead of allencompassing theory on the impact of technology on dispute resolution we need
to content ourselves with the overview of current developments in addition to
more detailed in casu analyses.
Another option is to categorise dispute resolution technology based on the
trends and development of the field over the past decades. As such chronological
categorisation would provide more tools for context-based evaluation and help in
understanding individual applications as parts of a historical continuum, this
categorisation strategy is suggested here. This means dividing different functionalities of dispute resolution technology to three distinct categories based on the
role of technology and time of their adoption. The first, preparadigmatic phase of
dispute resolution technology ranges from 1960s to the end of 1980s, the second
phase characterised by the introduction of World Wide Web that popularised the
Internet from the early 1990s to the end of the 2000s and the third phase
defined by the rapid advancement of technology from 2010s onwards.
The first preparadigmatic phase of dispute resolution technology was related to
the increasing automation of data processing that resulted from the breakthroughs
in computer technology and its commercialisation. As mainframe computers
became the norm for processing bulk data, legal scholars saw advantages to be
gained from the new technology, especially for case law research and analysis.
20
Towards the end of 1980s, improvements in word processing, as well as the
introduction of video depositions and in some cases electronic terminals in courthouses for e-filing, signified the beginning of dispute resolution technology. In this
first phase technology was mostly auxilliary to legal processes, its potential mostly
in making data processing easier.
In the second phase the possibilities of newly discovered cyberspace signified
both challenges and possibilities for national legal systems. The World Wide Web
enabled online databases for legal information, whereas email and later videoconferencing technology gave rise to early ODR applications.
21 Internet-based legal
services emerged to provide help for laypersons in need of legal documents without
lawyers and contributed to the growing demand voiced by the ADR movement for
making law more accessible. In the second phase the role attributed to technology
became more pronounced, but applications were still mostly there to assist lawyers.
In the third phase, which we are currently living, rapid technological changes
are increasingly felt as a pressure to redesign legal services and re-evaluate the role
64 Theoretical implications of dispute resolution technology
cause the false perception that technology’s impact on dispute resolution is minor
at best, which does not reflect the technological disruptiveness already affecting
dispute resolution. As some applications of legal technology (e.g. access services)
do not easily follow this doctrinal distinction, it is suggested here that we abandon
the terminology of courtroom technology and ODR for dispute resolution
technology to emphasise their overlap and convergence.
19
The delicate balance between reification of technology and taking technology
seriously is hard to maintain. Also the danger of imposing universal invariables is
looming, as it is tempting to define dispute resolution technology through
generalisations that downplay the need for case-by-case analysis. Instead of allencompassing theory on the impact of technology on dispute resolution we need
to content ourselves with the overview of current developments in addition to
more detailed in casu analyses.
Another option is to categorise dispute resolution technology based on the
trends and development of the field over the past decades. As such chronological
categorisation would provide more tools for context-based evaluation and help in
understanding individual applications as parts of a historical continuum, this
categorisation strategy is suggested here. This means dividing different functionalities of dispute resolution technology to three distinct categories based on the
role of technology and time of their adoption. The first, preparadigmatic phase of
dispute resolution technology ranges from 1960s to the end of 1980s, the second
phase characterised by the introduction of World Wide Web that popularised the
Internet from the early 1990s to the end of the 2000s and the third phase
defined by the rapid advancement of technology from 2010s onwards.
The first preparadigmatic phase of dispute resolution technology was related to
the increasing automation of data processing that resulted from the breakthroughs
in computer technology and its commercialisation. As mainframe computers
became the norm for processing bulk data, legal scholars saw advantages to be
gained from the new technology, especially for case law research and analysis.
20
Towards the end of 1980s, improvements in word processing, as well as the
introduction of video depositions and in some cases electronic terminals in courthouses for e-filing, signified the beginning of dispute resolution technology. In this
first phase technology was mostly auxilliary to legal processes, its potential mostly
in making data processing easier.
In the second phase the possibilities of newly discovered cyberspace signified
both challenges and possibilities for national legal systems. The World Wide Web
enabled online databases for legal information, whereas email and later videoconferencing technology gave rise to early ODR applications.
21 Internet-based legal
services emerged to provide help for laypersons in need of legal documents without
lawyers and contributed to the growing demand voiced by the ADR movement for
making law more accessible. In the second phase the role attributed to technology
became more pronounced, but applications were still mostly there to assist lawyers.
In the third phase, which we are currently living, rapid technological changes
are increasingly felt as a pressure to redesign legal services and re-evaluate the role
64 Theoretical implications of dispute resolution technology