|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
University of Otago Law Theses and Dissertations |
Last Updated: 25 September 2023
A Portal to the Future?
Optimising Legal Technology to Close the Justice Gap in Aotearoa
Lili Sabonadière
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of Bachelor of Laws (with Honours) at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
7 October 2022
Acknowledgments
Firstly, thank you to my supervisor Mihiata Pirini for introducing me to the world of socio-legal scholarship and reassuring me it is still “law”! Thank you for your patience and dedication to this role. I have benefitted immensely from your insightful feedback and guidance.
To my wonderful parents, Sally and Paul. Thank you for your advice, no-nonsense encouragement, and late-night proofreading. I owe everything to you and the opportunities you have given me. I always hope to make you proud.
To Zoë, George, and Louis for a lifetime of love, laughs, and for keeping me grounded.
Thank you Reece for your positivity, love, generosity, and for believing in me.
To my friends near and far, thank you for the memories. Thank you especially to Sarah, for everything. To the Chicas for the best times at the WBPS, and to Georgia for your camaraderie, optimism, and for inspiring me with your unparalleled work ethic - we did it!
Thank you.
Table of Contents
Chapter One
Introduction
Everyone in Aotearoa should have the same opportunity to seek help with legal problems. Few could deny the importance of this aspiration in a modern, democratic society. Unfortunately, our present reality is far removed from this ideal. A significant portion of society is restricted from accessing essential assistance with their legal problems because they cannot afford a lawyer and do not qualify for legal aid. This group falls within the “justice gap.”1
People in the justice gap often deal with unresolved legal problems for long periods of time. These unresolved problems have potentially serious consequences for their physical and financial wellbeing, particularly for the most vulnerable groups in society. I argue the Government and the legal profession have a responsibility to ensure universal access to justice and must show leadership in addressing the justice gap as an urgent priority in Aotearoa.
This dissertation proposes a strategy to close the justice gap in Aotearoa. Therefore, people who can afford a lawyer or are eligible for legal aid fall beyond the scope of this dissertation. I note that many of these people also experience barriers to access to justice, however the parameters of this dissertation exclude them from my discussion.
I argue that technology should be harnessed to close the justice gap and improve access to justice. Technology affords a unique opportunity to improve access to essential information and services for the majority of people in Aotearoa. Technology can also be helpful to maximise human and financial resources, which are under significant strain.
This dissertation makes the case that a certain type of legal technology must drive our approach to closing the justice gap. I propose this legal technology approach take the form of a national portal
1 Kayla Stewart and Bridgette Toy-Cronin The New Zealand Legal Services Mapping Project: Finding Free and Low- Cost Legal Services Pilot Report (University of Otago Legal Issues Centre, 2018) at 19.
system which can be modelled on examples from the USA, Australia and Canada. The national portal system constitutes two components: (1) a “front-end” website with a user-friendly interface providing access to information and resources, and (2) a “back-end” organisational structure which is modelled on the philosophy of Integrated Service Delivery (ISD). I contend that this form of portal system, underpinned by an integrated organisational structure, will optimise technology and resources to close the justice gap.
This dissertation focuses on improving access to justice in the civil jurisdiction, rather than the criminal jurisdiction.2 In particular, I examine the role of technology in improving people’s access to resources to solve everyday legal problems. An “everyday legal problem” is defined as a “problem arising out of the normal activities of people's daily lives that has a legal aspect and has a potential legal solution”.3 The most common kinds of problems experienced by New Zealanders are consumer, housing, debt, employment, and family law related.4
This dissertation comprises five chapters. In this Chapter, I outline its scope and my key arguments. In Chapter Two, I argue in favour of adopting a broad notion of “effective access to justice.” I survey the present state of access to justice in Aotearoa, and highlight the key barriers restricting access. I assess the foundations of the idea that everyone is entitled to access to justice, and justify my position that the State and the legal profession bear the responsibility of ensuring universal access to justice in Aotearoa. Finally, I introduce my argument that technology must form part of our approach to closing the justice gap.
In Chapter Three, I establish the type of legal technology which should be used to close the justice gap. I analyse examples of technology initiatives from Australia and The Netherlands, and discuss the lessons to be learnt from those examples. Lastly, I address digital exclusion and distrust of technology as two challenges to implementing legal technology initiatives.
2 I note this distinction is not recognised in Te Ao Māori.
3 Trevor CW Farrow and others Everyday Legal Problems and the Cost of Justice in Canada - Overview Report
(Canadian Forum on Civil Justice, Toronto, 2016) at 5.
4 New Zealand Law Society Access to Justice: Stocktake of initiatives (Wellington, 2020) at 13.
In Chapter Four, I make the case for a national portal system underpinned by an integrated organisational structure. I discuss the philosophy of ISD and its benefits for access to justice. I consider a model for a national portal system based on overseas examples, and consider how this may be implemented in Aotearoa. Lastly, I critically assess the ability of a national portal system to close the justice gap, and identify its key limitations. In Chapter Five I conclude my key arguments.Chapter Two
Access to Justice and the Justice Gap
I. Introduction
Contemporary discussions about societal welfare and equality increasingly focus on concerns about access to justice.5 Ensuring everyone in society has effective access to justice is fundamental to improving citizens’ general wellbeing and maintaining the proper functioning of our public institutions. 6 Nevertheless, a significant proportion of society in Aotearoa and the world continue to face barriers to resolving their everyday legal problems.
In this chapter, I argue in favour of a broad concept of access to justice (“effective access to justice”). This broad concept is focused on understanding the reality of legal problems that people experience, and on finding effective measures to meet these problems, rather than just improving access to courts and lawyers. I examine the current state of access to justice in Aotearoa and identify some key factors contributing to the “justice gap”. The justice gap refers to the situation where people cannot afford legal representation, yet do not qualify for legal aid.7 I survey the ideological foundations of access to justice and discuss the responsibility of the State and the legal profession for improving access to justice. Finally, I introduce my argument that technology must form part of a sustainable solution to closing the justice gap. This argument will be developed in later chapters. As discussed in the introduction chapter, my focus is on access to justice in the civil jurisdiction, rather than the criminal jurisdiction.
5 See for example Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development UN Doc A/70/L.1 (18 September 2015) at 14; World Justice Project Global Insights on Access to Justice: Findings from the World Justice Project General Population Poll in 101 Countries (2019); OECD Understanding Effective Access to Justice (Open Society Justice Initiative, Paris, 2016).
6 Liz Curran and Mary Anne Noone “Access To Justice: A New Approach Using Human Rights Standards” (2009) 15 IntJLegProf 195 at 196; Helen Winkelmann "Access to Justice - Who needs lawyers?" [2014] OtaLawRw 2; (2014) 13 Otago LR 229; Chris Finlayson, Attorney-General of New Zealand “Access to Justice, Legal Representation and the Rule of Law” (speech to Legal Research Foundation, 24 October 2009).
7 Stewart and Toy-Cronin, above n 1, at 19.
II. What is Effective Access to Justice?
In democratic societies, access to justice is a well-recognised concept, often understood in connection with the rule of law or human rights.8 Despite this and the long-standing use of the term “access to justice” in the literature,9 understanding of what the idea entails varies. Here, I argue that a traditionally narrow idea of access to justice should give away to the broader notion “effective access to justice.” Promoting effective access to justice will require a shift in perspective, so that we focus on the reality of people’s experiences with the justice system, and the outcomes that they may achieve.
Some sources narrowly define access to justice as a person’s ability to access lawyers and a remedy via formal judicial institutions such as the courts.10 This understanding reflects the early goals of international justice reforms, which sought to provide access to lawyers and the courts through programmes such as legal aid.11 However, it is now clear that this narrow definition does not reflect the realities of legal need12 globally. Researchers in a variety of jurisdictions have carried out surveys of legal need in recent years,13 providing a wealth of evidence that most people resolve their legal problems outside the scope of the formal justice system, and many do not seek a resolution at all.14 Therefore, if we only conceive of access to justice as being the ability to access
8 Frances Joychild “Frances Joychild QC on the fading star of the Rule of Law” Evening Report (24 March 2015); Mark Boddington Legal Informatics and Access to Justice: Innovation in Education and the Community Sector (New Zealand Winston Churchill Memorial Trust, 2017) at 3; Winkelmann, above n 6; Finlayson, above n 6.
9 The term ‘access to justice’ was popularized in the 1970’s by Mauro Cappelletti. See Boddington, above n 8, at 3. See also: Bryant G. Garth and Mauro Cappelleti “Access to Justice, the Newest Wave in the Worldwide Movement to Make Rights Effective” (1978) 27, BuffLRev 181 at 182.
10 Christine Coumarelos and others Legal Australia-Wide Survey: Legal Need in Australia (Law and Justice Foundation of New South Wales, 2012) at 3.
11 Coumarelos and others, above n 10, at 3.
12 Unmet legal need can be defined as the gap between experiencing a legal problem and satisfactorily solving that problem. See T Dignan Legal Need in Northern Ireland: Literature Review (Northern Ireland Legal Services Commission, Belfast, 2004) as cited in Christine Coumarelos and others Legal Australia-Wide Survey: Legal Need in Australia (Law and Justice Foundation of New South Wales, 2012) at 4.
13 See generally Colmar Brunton Legal Needs Among New Zealanders (Ministry of Justice, 2018); Coumarelos and others, above n 10; OECD, above n 5; World Justice Project Global Insights on Access to Justice, above n 5; World Justice Project Measuring the Justice Gap: A People-Centered Assessment of Unmet Justice Needs Around the World (2019).
14 Coumarelos and others, above n 10, at 1.
lawyers and the courts, we will not get a full picture of the legal problems that people face, and what measures are needed to effectively address those problems.
Consequently, the concept of “effective access to justice” has gained popularity.15 One of the most important features of this concept is its increased focus on ensuring individuals can achieve fair and equitable outcomes to their legal problems.16 Effective access to justice measures must aim to improve outcomes by confronting the barriers to access people face outside of the justice system, and focusing on the resources they are most likely to utilise to overcome those barriers. Measures must also reflect the nature and extent of legal problems people are likely to encounter, and those individuals’ perspectives on what constitutes a fair outcome.
I note that this focus aims to improve individuals’ experience in arriving at an outcome, and make the pathway towards a legally just outcome possible. Enabling individuals to reach fair and equitable outcomes does not necessarily involve giving individuals the outcome they desire.
For example, Statistics from surveys of Australian and Aotearoa legal needs17 show that many people with a legal problem first seek advice from family, friends, or trusted professionals such as doctors ahead of legal specialists.18 Effective access to justice initiatives would not only target the person with the legal problem, but also these “helpers”,19 and would try and ensure they also have access to legal advice and information services.
Responses from those surveys also revealed that stress and financial loss were the most damaging effects of legal problems.20 Therefore, increased access to formal dispute resolution measures,
15 See for example Coumarelos and others, above n 10; OECD, above n 5; Boddington, above n 8.
16 United Nations Development Program Access to Justice Practice Note (2004) at 6; OECD, above n 5, at 2.
17 Note that statistical consistencies across multiple jurisdictions have been identified. See Coumarelos and others, above n 10.
18 Colmar Brunton, above n 13, at 6; Coumarelos and others, above n 10, at 111.
19 The word “helpers” is used in David Turner and Bridgette Toy-Cronin Online Legal Information and Self Help in Aotearoa: An agenda for action (University of Otago, 2020) at 15.
20 Colmar Brunton, above n 13, at 53; Coumarelos and others, above n 10, at 181.
which may be more expensive and more stressful, may not always be the right approach. Certain legal problems may require alternative resolution pathways, outside of the courts.
The majority of survey respondents said they resolved their legal problems by agreement with the other party.21 Research from the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD)22 shows that formal dispute resolution processes are often not necessary to achieve fair outcomes because practical, socially acceptable outcomes are likely to be more satisfactory to the general population than traditional legal remedies.23 Thus, measures which improve access to the courts and formal legal representation may not improve outcomes for the majority.
The broader notion of effective access to justice also shifts the focus towards a wider variety of measures. These may extend beyond formal dispute resolution into informal dispute resolution, preventative and early intervention initiatives, legal information and education, and law reform.24
The evidence discussed above challenges us to dedicate more effort to problem prevention by improving legal and civics education and access to non-traditional or informal dispute resolution practices, such as online self-help guides and mediation advice.25 It may encourage us to implement institutional reforms such as the ‘plain language movement’26 and simplification of formal procedures. 27 In this way, our access to justice initiatives can begin to work for the people
- based on the way people experience legal problems, and try to resolve them, in reality.28
21 Colmar Brunton, above n 13, at 76; Coumarelos and others, above n 10, at 140.
22 A 2016 conference paper consolidating research data on access to justice across OECD member states, identifying patterns across these countries. See OECD, above n 5.
23 The term ‘traditional legal remedies’ refers to remedies obtainable in accordance with rules of law, including determinations and orders under common law, equity and legislation made by courts, tribunals or authorised administrative officers, and negotiations backed by the possibility of legal proceedings. See DM Walker The Oxford Companion to Law (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1980) as cited in Coumarelos and others, above n 10.
For authority on the point relating to socially acceptable outcomes see OECD, above n 5, at 5.
24 Coumarelos and others, above n 10, at 207.
25 Coumarelos and others, above n 10, at 207.
26 Coumarelos and others, above n 10, at 3.
27 Finlayson, above n 6, referring to the work of the Rules Committee in simplifying District Court practices.
28 Coumarelos and others, above n 10, at 207.
Another shift in perspective required to achieve effective access to justice is an increased focus on making access equitable. This involves recognising that differences in how people experience barriers to access are important.29 Granting universal access to information, guidance, systems, and institutions involved with justice is crucial, yet some individuals may require additional support to reach a fair outcome. Additional support may be required due to personal factors such as disability, gender, race, education, geographical location, and language, which can all contribute to an individual’s ability to access justice effectively.30
In addition, certain vulnerable groups are likely to encounter more legal problems, with more damaging impacts, than the general population. These groups include socially and economically disadvantaged people, such as those on low incomes, single parents, people living with disabilities, and minority groups such as Māori and Pasifika peoples.31 When people experience multiple concomitant legal and non-legal problems, the impacts of these problems have been shown to have a compounding and exacerbating effect, leaving them particularly vulnerable.32
Therefore, more needs to be done to ensure disadvantaged groups have the same likelihood of reaching a fair outcome to their legal problems as others. The LAW Survey stresses the importance of tailoring access to justice to address the heightened need of disadvantaged groups. It argues that catering to such groups should be a priority of justice policy, given the evidence that a large proportion of legal problems are concentrated within those groups.33
In summary, in light of the evidence about the reality of legal problems, I argue that “access to justice” should denote a broad, multifaceted concept. At its core, this concept constitutes the pursuit of fair and equitable outcomes to legal problems for every person in society, with particular emphasis on outcomes for socioeconomically disadvantaged groups.
29 Coumarelos and others, above n 10, at 206.
30 Boddington, above n 8, at 3.
31 Colmar Brunton, above n 13, at 4-5; Coumarelos and others, above n 10, at 174-180.
32 Coumarelos and others, above n 10, at 27; Colmar Brunton, above n 13, at 5-8.
33 Coumarelos and others, above n 10, at 206.
III. The Current State Of Access To Justice In Aotearoa
Access to justice issues have become the subject of increased national scrutiny in recent years, prompting investigations into unmet legal need and current access to justice measures by the New Zealand Bar Association, the New Zealand Law Society, and the Ministry of Justice.34 The 2019 World Justice Project survey of worldwide legal need showed that 63 per cent of people in Aotearoa had experienced a legal problem in the last two years. 35 While 72 per cent knew where they could access help for their problems, only 32 per cent were able to access it.36 This points to the inadequacy of affordable legal and professional advice services. 56 per cent of respondents said their problem was ongoing or unresolved, and 46 per cent experienced hardship related to their problem.37 People commonly report feeling stress, fear, a loss of confidence, and financial loss as a result of ongoing legal problems.38
As I have discussed earlier, people in socioeconomically disadvantaged circumstances tend to experience more problems with greater impact on their lives.39 The inability to access justice weighs heavily on the most vulnerable people in our communities, which affects society as a whole. The OECD report noted that decline in individual wellbeing due to housing, health, and financial instability increases the need for public spending on social services.40 Ongoing failures to resolve peoples’ legal problems contributes to a “cycle of decline” affecting economic growth and leading to a loss of faith in the justice system.41 Access to justice is a major societal issue, with implications for everyone.
Early in 2015, Frances Joychild QC shared her concerns about the fragile state of the rule of law in Aotearoa owing to the access to justice issues she was observing in her work.42 While much of
34 New Zealand Bar Association Working Group on Access to Justice Access to Justice: Āhei ki te Ture (New Zealand Bar Association, 2018); Kantar Public, Access to Justice Research 2021 (New Zealand Law Society, October 2021); Above n 4; Colmar Brunton, above n 13; Waitangi Tribunal, above n 54.
35 At 77.
36 At 77.
37 At 77.
38 Colmar Brunton, above n 13, at 5.
39 Chapter Two, Part II; OECD, above n 5, at 11.
40 OECD, above n 5, at 12.
41 OECD, above n 5, at 12, discussed in Part B.
42 See Joychild, above n 8.
her experience relates to the legal aid system, which I am not discussing, it sheds light on the impact of unmet legal need on people’s lives.
She described the toll legal aid repayments had taken on the mental health of one of her elderly clients, who was left destitute after his business collapsed. The $6,000 legal aid fee he was advised he would have to repay with interest had triggered his depression and brought on panic attacks.43 Without the capacity to take on new work, and in light of legal aid’s “appallingly inadequate” remuneration, she had turned away countless people in need and had a client inform her she was the twentieth legal aid lawyer they had contacted.44 Many of those who contacted her were people in vulnerable positions, being exploited by employers who were paying them half the minimum wage, paying them in food for full-time work, or withholding sick pay, breaks, and annual leave.45 She described her cases involving income-tested beneficiaries as the most “disturbing and alarming” cases she had dealt with.46
Based on recent statistics arising from a New Zealand Law Society (NZLS) survey of access to justice in Aotearoa47 the situation has not substantially improved in the seven years since Joychild’s account was published. Statistical evidence and the concerns expressed by Joychild demonstrate the need for urgent reform to achieve effective access to justice in Aotearoa.
One of the major areas for concern in Aotearoa is the growing number of people who fall into the ‘justice gap’. This ‘gap’ occurs where people cannot afford legal representation, yet do not qualify for legal aid.48 They must rely on free legal information, community services, and pro bono legal
43 At 2.
44 At 2.
45 At 3.
46 At 3.
47 For example, half of surveyed lawyers had to turn away clients in the last 12 months, and half of lawyers surveyed rated the legal system as poor or very poor at providing everyone in Aotearoa New Zealand with access to justice.
See Kantar Public, above n 34.
48 Stewart and Toy-Cronin, above n 1, at 19.
advice, yet the availability of these resources has been shown to be insufficient to meet the quantity of unmet legal need in the population.49
As discussed in my introduction, the focus of my dissertation is on technology that is targeted towards those who are experiencing an “everyday legal problem” within the justice gap – a “problem arising out of the normal activities of people's daily lives that has a legal aspect and has a potential legal solution”.50 People in the justice gap rely on free information and services to resolve the problems, but they experience barriers that may prevent access to them . In the following Part, I describe some of these barriers. This provides context to my later discussion about how technology may help us eliminate or mitigate those barriers.
A survey of access to justice initiatives undertaken by the NZLS identified five key categories of barriers that people might experience when trying to resolve a legal problem: geography, cultural and social, information, cost, and service delivery.51 Many of these barriers will be experienced by those in the justice gap in Aotearoa.
Geographical barriers arise where physical location prevents people from accessing services. This may be due to the geographical spread of services, transport-related difficulties, and/or poor internet connectivity.52 Cultural and social barriers to access may include institutional racism, cultural incompetence in services, and individual attitudes such as an unwillingness to seek help for problems.53 The impact of cultural barriers to access on Māori in particular is a current concern of the Waitangi Tribunal’s Wai 2030 Above n 54 inquiry.54 Among other concerns, the Tribunal
49 See for example Kayla Stewart, Bridgette Toy-Cronin and Louisa Choe New Zealand Lawyers, Pro Bono, And Access To Justice (University of Otago Legal Issues Centre, 2020); Colmar Brunton, above n 13; Kantar Public, above n 34; New Zealand Law Society, above n 34.
50 Farrow and others, above n 3, at 5.
51 Above n 4, at 4.
52 Above n 4, at 10.
53 Above n 4, at 10.
54 See Waitangi Tribunal Memorandum-Directions Of The Chairperson Commencing A Kaupapa Inquiry Into Claims Concerning The Justice System (Wai 3060, 2021).
is investigating claims relating to discrimination, institutional racism, and bias affecting Māori in the administration of justice.55
Information barriers include a lack of helpful and current advice about rights and how to manage problems, a lack of understanding of the law and of the language used in resources, digital exclusion,56 and misinformation.57 ‘Legal capability’ has become an important concept for those working in civil access to justice because of the impact of such information barriers worldwide.58 Legal capability refers to a person’s ability to navigate the law and reach fair solutions to problems, with regard to the “knowledge, skills, attributes, and resources needed to deal with legal problems.”59 Improving legal capability in Aotearoa is an important factor in closing the justice gap because it can empower people to advocate for themselves and reduce the risk posed by misinformation.60
Cost is another dominant barrier to access – not the cost of accessing a lawyer (since people in the justice gap cannot afford to do so), but rather, the cost of accessing “free” legal information and advice. Indirect costs may be involved with seeking assistance such as travel, childcare, and time away from work.61 People with multiple or ongoing legal problems are also likely to experience higher financial barriers to access due to economic hardship experienced as a consequence of legal problems.62 Barriers relating to service delivery include inaccessibility of providers, resource constraints, and inadequacies of services such as legal aid.63
While people qualifying for legal aid do not fall within the definition of the justice gap I am using, flaws in the legal aid system exacerbate the justice gap problem. Legal aid lawyers are
55 Waitangi Tribunal, above n 54, at 3.
56 Digital exclusion is defined as situations where people face barriers to participating fully in society because of information and services being online. See Citizen’s Advice Bureaux Face to Face with Digital Exclusion: A CAB Spotlight Report into the Impacts of Digital Public Services on Inclusion and Wellbeing (2020) at 9.
57 Above n 4, at 10.
58 See for example Victoria Law Foundation “Measuring Legal Capability” <www.victorialawfoundation.org.au>.
59 Above n 58.
60 Projects like Victoria Law Foundation’s PULS (Public Understanding of Law Survey Victoria) are working toward this goal. See Victoria Law Foundation “Public Understanding of Law Survey”
<www.victorialawfoundation.org.au>.
61 Above n 4, at 10.
62 World Justice Project Global Insights on Access to Justice, above n 5, at 77.
overstretched and turning away clients, and many are looking to give up legal aid work. The legal aid income thresholds are incredibly low, and the loan system causes significant problems.64 The result is that many people who qualify for legal aid may not be able to access help, leaving them with unresolved problems. More burden is likely to be placed on community services and public resources, adding to the strain created by underfunding and the size of the justice gap. Some legal aid reforms have been announced, yet more needs to be done in this area.65
Inefficiencies in the delivery of pro bono legal services also contribute to service delivery barriers. Pro bono has the capacity to address a significant proportion of unmet legal need for those in the justice gap, however its delivery in Aotearoa is disjointed and unequal. The University of Otago Legal Issues Centre (UOLIC) report on pro bono services in Aotearoa confirms the existence of a number of problems in the area.66 Firstly, there is significant disagreement amongst lawyers about the definition of pro bono, making it difficult to generate reliable statistics on the State of pro bono service provision nationally.67 Most respondents thought “giving legal assistance to individuals who cannot afford to access the legal system” was pro bono.68 Some respondents thought legal aid work constituted pro bono, as well as some non-legal work such as sitting on boards, volunteering for charities, and providing workplace sponsorship of organisations.69 This problem is exacerbated by the fact many pro bono hours are unrecorded.70
Secondly, pro bono work is often offered by lawyers on an ad hoc basis and frequently to people with whom lawyers have personal connections.71 This may well have the effect of exacerbating the gap between those who have connections to lawyers through their personal and family networks and those who don’t. The combined effect of varied understandings of pro bono in the profession and the importance of personal connections is that those in genuine financial need are
64 Kantar Public, above n 34, at 5, 18, 23.
65 See Bridgette Toy-Cronin “Legal Aid’s Budget Boost Isn’t Enough” (13 June 2022) Newsroom
66 See Stewart, Toy-Cronin and Choe, above n 49.
67 At 5-6.
68 At 11.
69 At 12.
70 At 7. Participants were asked if they recorded their pro bono hours and only 25 per cent reported that they did so.
71 At 15.
not the beneficiaries of a significant proportion of pro bono work in Aotearoa. Confusion between legal aid and pro bono work may also have an impact on funding decisions for legal aid.72
The UOLIC made a number of recommendations arising out of these findings. These included clarifying the definition of pro bono services,73 introducing incentives and an aspirational target so more lawyers will perform pro bono work, and encouraging law firms to enable their employees to perform pro bono work. The UOLIC also recommended the introduction of a national clearinghouse to better connect lawyers with clients.74 Encouragingly, an online clearinghouse has now been introduced. Te Ara Ture was set up in late 2021, connecting pro bono clients with lawyers through a portal, supported by Community Law centres.75 Implementing the rest of the UOLIC’s recommendations should be an ongoing focus for policymakers and Government, working with the legal profession for a model which all will support.
People who are most vulnerable as a result of legal problems are likely to be affected by some or all of these factors.76 Improving effective access to justice and closing the justice gap in Aotearoa requires finding solutions which target multiple key barriers to access.
IV. Responsibility for Access to Justice
Reasonable people would agree that ensuring universal access to justice is not only a worthy aspiration but a necessity in modern society. As Winkelmann CJ simply stated, “who could doubt or challenge the importance of access to justice?”77 Investigating its foundations is worthwhile because those foundations provide the legitimate basis for placing primary responsibility on executive Government to ensure effective access to justice.
72 At 22.
73 At 5. The authors suggest a definition based on that of the Australian Pro Bono Centre. See Australian Pro Bono Centre “What is Pro Bono?” (2019) Information on Pro Bono <https://www.probonocentre.org.au/>
74 At 26.
75 New Zealand Law Society “Launch of New Pro Bono Tool” (13 May 2021) <www.lawsociety.org.nz>.
76 Colmar Brunton, above n 13. Statistics showed single parents, Māori and Pasifika peoples, Low-income people, and people living with disability fare the worst in relation to unmet legal need.
77 Winkelmann, above n 6.
The rule of law is a fundamental principle which underpins the idea that everyone is entitled to access to justice. Chief Justice Winkelman and Chris Finlayson (then Attorney-General) have both called attention to the threat access to justice problems represent for the rule of law in Aotearoa. Frances Joychild KC likened the state of the rule of law in Aotearoa to a “fading star”, due to the difficulties associated with accessing justice.78
The rule of law ideal derives from the Magna Carta 1215, the first attempt to constrain the power of the English sovereign. The rule of law has become representative of the modern-day principle that all are equal before the law, and similarly every person is entitled to the benefit of the law.79 Over time, as Parliament has assumed the sovereign’s seat as the bearer of supreme political power, the rule of law tradition has been subsumed into a set of principles which govern the proper operation of democracy and justify the State’s hegemonic power.80 Maintaining the rule of law is now crucial to maintain the perceived legitimacy of the State, its laws, and its institutions among the voting population.81
Popular respect for the judicial system in particular depends on whether people have access to its remedies and protections, given the significant power of its bodies and institutions to limit individuals’ rights and freedoms.82 As such, the fact that presently many people are prevented from protecting their interests through the law undermines the theory that the State has the legitimate right to rule based on the delivery of the promises embedded in these democratic principles.83 Crawford and Maldonado suggest that in experiencing barriers to access to justice, people are also excluded from participating in the political community.84 This constitutes a significant threat to liberal democracies’ overarching “normative projects.”85 The necessary implication of this
78 Winkelmann, above n 6; Finlayson, above n 6; Joychild, above n 8.
79 Martin Krygier “Magna Carta and the Rule of Law Tradition” (2015) 65 Papers on Parliament 1 at 12; Finlayson, above n 6.
80 Krygier, above n 79, at 12.
81 Colin Crawford and Daniel Bonilla Maldonado “Access to Justice: Theory and Practice from a Comparative Perspective” (2020) 27 IndJGlobalLegalStud 1 at 2.
82 Crawford and Maldonado, above n 82, at 2; Finlayson, above n 6.
83 Crawford and Maldonado, above n 82, at 2.
84 At 4.
85 Crawford and Maldonado, above n 82, at 2.
argument is that problems of access to justice represent a challenge to the legitimacy of Parliament itself. As the rule of law ‘star’ fades in a state, so too does the strength of its democracy.86
Human rights discourse also has implications for access to justice. Some commentators do not hesitate to champion access to justice as “a right of primordial importance” despite the fact the existence of a universal ‘right’ to access to justice is yet undecided.87
Support for this concept can be found in international human rights instruments which recognise principles of access to justice. The right to an effective remedy, equality under the law, and the right to a fair and public trial in respect of breaches of guaranteed rights are codified in international instruments including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.88
While the above instruments may not themselves equate to a law creating a broad access to justice right, Curran and Noone argue that rights are increasingly relied upon as a method to pressure states to improve access to justice for their citizens.89 The connections between poor access to justice and increased hardship in other welfare aspects such as health, employment, housing, and education are now well recognised in the literature.90 Hardship which results from or is worsened by a lack of access to justice may therefore lead to a person’s loss of their basic rights. Furthermore, a lack of access to justice may perpetuate hardship and a person’s loss of rights if they are unable to legally enforce them. Owing to these correlations, it seems the current access to justice problems seen globally constitute not only a failure of states to provide for the welfare of their citizens, but also a failure of many states to perform their obligations under international human rights instruments. Poor access to justice threatens rights protections for everyone, because continued
86 Joychild, above n 8.
87 Garth and Cappelletti, above n 9, at 185.
88 Universal Declaration of Human Rights GA Res 217A (1948) arts 8, 10; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights GA Res 2200A (1966).
89 Curran and Noone, above n 6, at 196.
90 See for example Curran and Noone, above n 6; Coumarelos and others, above n 10; Colmar Brunton, above n 13; OECD, above n 5; World Justice Project Measuring the Justice Gap, above n 13.
inaction signifies a shift toward rights becoming mere philosophical aspirations, rather than inalienable obligations.
In Aotearoa, the State derives the right to govern from the promises made under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.91 The State also owes duties to Māori under Te Tiriti, including the duty to actively protect Māori interests.92 The Waitangi Tribunal has frequently interpreted the duty of active protection as extending beyond Māori resources to encompass protection of Māori interests generally.93 The Tribunal has also stated that “failure actively to protect Māori Treaty rights when necessary is as much a breach of the Treaty as the active removal of those rights.”94
Access to justice should be acknowledged as an important part of the State’s obligations to actively protect Māori interests. As discussed, Māori are among the groups disproportionately affected by barriers to access, affecting their ability to have their rights and interests protected under law.95 The State’s failure to act to improve access to justice for Māori constitutes a failure to actively protect Māori interests. Thus, the Crown may be in breach of Te Tiriti.
The report of the Waitangi Tribunal Kaupapa Inquiry into the justice system may provide confirmation of this point. The Inquiry arose from claims of grievances against Māori including:96
(b) discrimination against Māori in the statutory and institutional framework for the administration of justice in colonial and modern times;
(c) institutional racism and bias in the policy and practice of justice sector organisations;
(d) access to justice, including legal aid in civil court and tribunal cases and claimant funding for progressing Treaty-based claims and rights.
91 New Zealand Māori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 at 665.
92 New Zealand Māori Council v Attorney-General, above n 91, at 664.
93 Waitangi Tribunal Tū Mai Te Rangi! (Wai 2540, 2017) at 21–22; Waitangi Tribunal The Offender Assessment Policies Report (Wai 1024, 2005) at 12 ; Waitangi Tribunal Te Whanau o Waipareira (Wai 414, 1998) at 16.
94 Wai 2540, above n 93, at 26.
95 Chapter Two, Part III.
96 Wai 3060, above n 54, at 3.
The scope of the inquiry is broad, encompassing the administration of justice in Aotearoa. Chief Judge Isaac considered the “number and range of applications for urgency in recent years concerning justice sector issues indicates a weight of claimant concern sufficient to merit an early start to the Tribunal’s inquiry”.97 This statement is consistent with reports that Māori proportionally face greater barriers to access to justice than other demographic groups.98
It is possible that the Tribunal will conclude the State has breached its duties as a Treaty partner in respect of the administration of justice for Māori in Aotearoa.99 This should be a further incentive for the State to act to improve access to justice for Māori. Nevertheless, Treaty principles of partnership and active protection mean the State is obliged to act irrespective of the Tribunal’s finding.100
Democratic states must provide access to justice to uphold the rule of law and protect human rights. By virtue of their sovereign powers and obligations to maintain welfare standards for all citizens, states logically bear the principal onus of ensuring their citizens have effective access to justice. This extends to all branches of the legal system: the government, the judiciary and the legislature. Furthermore, states have allowed and have perpetuated the emergence of the very socioeconomic inequalities which now act as the primary barriers to access in modern society.101 Modern states have implemented a justice system which requires that lawyers alone are permitted to act in most judicial proceedings, requiring people to engage costly assistance for their problems102 or being barred from access to justice. The State in Aotearoa has additional obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, as discussed.
The expectation that the State will perform the duty of providing access is consistent with the dominant view of states as primary welfare providers.103 The natural next step in states’ obligation
97 Wai 3060, above n 54, at 3.
98 Colmar Brunton, above n 13; New Zealand Law Society, above n 34; New Zealand Bar Association Working Group on Access to Justice, above n 34.
99 New Zealand Māori Council v Attorney-General, above n 91, at 642. 100 New Zealand Māori Council v Attorney-General, above n 91, at 644. 101 Crawford and Maldonado, above n 82, at 2.
102 Crawford and Maldonado, above n 82, at 6.
103 See Paul Carpinter Summary – History Of The Welfare State In New Zealand (2012).
to provide welfare is to facilitate the development of modern solutions to the perpetual problem of access to justice.
Promisingly, in Aotearoa the Ministry of Justice has recently facilitated the formulation of a national access to justice strategy via a Working Group of civil access to justice stakeholders.104 The Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE) has also collaborated on this and other research projects.105 These advances could be seen as an acceptance of a state responsibility for access to justice which extends beyond its traditional role in providing legal aid and funding for community law centres.106 Nonetheless, more could be done to assist current non-Government organisations such as Citizen’s Advice Bureau (CAB) and Community Law Centres o Aotearoa (CLCA) in providing essential legal advice services to the community.
Notwithstanding the principal role of the State in ensuring effective access to justice, the legal profession is widely recognised as playing an important role in promoting and enhancing such access to justice. Justice Kirby, an Australian High Court Judge, considered the respectability of the profession depended on lawyers fulfilling their responsibility to society:107
. . . The bottom line is that law is not just a business. Never was. Never can be so. It is a special profession. Its only claim to public respect is the commitment of each and every one of us to equal justice under law.
A sense of moral or social duty is felt by many members of the legal profession, whether or not they actively engage with their supposed social responsibilities. For instance, many lawyers agree with the idea that carrying out pro bono work is part of their social and professional duty. 108 Additionally, some believe lawyers should act in the public service because of their position as
104 See Ministry of Justice “Wayfinding for Civil Justice – Working Group” <www.justice.govt.nz>. See also Bridgette Toy-Cronin and others Wayfinding for Civil Justice – Strategy Consultation Document (2022).
105 Ministry of Justice, above n 104; David Turner and Bridgette Toy-Cronin Online Legal Information and Self Help in Aotearoa: An agenda for action (University of Otago, 2020).
106 Coumarelos and others, above n 10, at 3; Community Law <www.communitylaw.org.nz>.
107Michael Kirby, Justice of the High Court of Australia, “Law Firms And Justice In Australia” (speech at Australian Law Awards, Sydney, 7 March 2002).
108 Fiona Mcleay “The legal profession's beautiful myth: surveying the justifications for the lawyer's obligation to perform pro bono work” (2009) 15 IntJLegProf 249 at 253.
“monopoly gatekeepers” of the justice system, with a unique ability to provide invaluable public good through pro bono.109 Duncan Webb goes as far as to say that:
... lawyering is distinct from other occupations in that it holds a monopoly on a fundamental element in the social ordering of a society subject to the rule of law- the ability to utilise and enforce the law. This privilege is not without costs. If one is to become part of the legal system, one must also be committed to the preservation and promotion of its values including access to the law.
The NZLS has been clear that “assisting and promoting the reform of the law for the purpose of upholding the rule of law and the administration of justice is a key function for the Law Society and it has commissioned projects in line with this statement.110 It does not, however, have any statutory foundation.
Not everyone agrees about the profession’s role in enhancing access to justice. Some are vehemently opposed to the idea of obliging lawyers to act against their personal interests to rectify the State’s inadequate funding for legal services.111 Some argue that many other professions operate in a monopoly of expertise, yet are not required to work for free, despite the importance of their work.112 Despite these opposing voices, Lawyers generally consider that their training has afforded them a better opportunity to work toward the access to justice ideal than most citizens, giving rise to an ethical and moral duty to help the less advantaged.113
In Aotearoa, leading members of the profession certainly subscribe to this idea. Speaking at the Ethel Benjamin Commemorative Address in 2014, Winkelmann CJ asserted:114
It is for the profession to play its part, a critical part, in meeting the challenge to provide access to justice for all in our society. To do this, the profession will have
109 Mcleay, above n 108, at 251.
110 Above n 4, at 2.
111 Mcleay, above n 108, at 262.
112 Mcleay, above n 108, at 260.
113 Mcleay, above n 108, at 262.
114 Winkelmann, above n 6.
to innovate. It will have to be prepared to initiate and engage in debate about these issues and to question, and if necessary change, its current way of doing business.
Both the NZLS and the New Zealand Bar Association have echoed these sentiments, acknowledging the central role their organisations and the wider profession have in improving access to justice.115 As part of the current Independent Review of the legal profession, a Discussion Document was published in June 2022. The document references “lawyers’ professional responsibility to help ensure equal access to justice.”116 However, this responsibility is not directly reflected in the profession’s regulatory framework. In fact, one of the reasons which lawyers can give for refusing instructions or terminating a retainer is inability to pay an appropriate fee.117
The next step should be to introduce an aspirational benchmark for pro bono provision in Aotearoa, as has been done in Australia, supported by the amendment of the profession’s regulatory framework to reflect lawyers’ role in access to justice, particularly in providing pro bono services.118 A model for a mandatory pro bono allocation could be explored further.
While responsibility for ensuring access to justice rests primarily with the State, the legal profession has an important supporting role to play. Duncan Webb affirms that “in practicing law, lawyers are part of a system which they have a duty to uphold and promote.”119 Lawyers would also from contributing more to promote equality in our justice system.
V. Technology Must Form Part of the Justice Gap Solution
In this Part, I introduce my argument that technology must form part of the solutions to the justice gap. I examine some promising steps in other countries towards developing technology for access to justice, and I argue the beginnings of this trend are present in Aotearoa. Lastly, I introduce my
115 Above n 4; New Zealand Bar Association Working Group on Access to Justice, above n 34; Legal Review Secretariat The Regulation of Lawyers and Legal Services in Aotearoa New Zealand– Independent Review Discussion Document (2022) at 12.
116 Legal Review Secretariat, above n 115, at 16.
117 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care Rules) 2008 r 4.1.
118 Legal Review Secretariat, above n 115, at 16.
119 Duncan Webb “Why Should Poor People Get Free Lawyers?” (1998) 28 VUWLR 65 at 65.
argument that technology can assist the Government in producing better outcomes for people in the justice gap.
Efforts to develop technology tools and systems to improve access to justice are advancing in several jurisdictions.120 For example, the United States Legal Services Corporation’s (LSC) revolutionary Technology Initiative Grant (TIG) has awarded over NZD$122.7 million in grants to develop access to justice technologies. 121 The LSC came to the conclusion from its experience with the TIG program that “technology can be a powerful tool in narrowing the justice gap.”122 Organisations in Canada, Australia, and the USA have deployed online tools to facilitate access to justice, with success.123 These websites and tools could be helpful blueprints for potential developments in Aotearoa. For example, sites like Steps to Justice, which aids the provision of legal information in Canada, and Justice Connect, which is a sophisticated online pro bono clearinghouse from Australia, address problems also faced in Aotearoa through simple, broadly transferable applications of technology.124 These successful examples also provide reassurance that investing in similar developments in Aotearoa would reap benefits.
Stakeholders in Aotearoa are looking to these developments, and have demonstrated an appetite for similar change.125 Particular emphasis is being placed on encouraging better collaboration among those whose work relates to civil access to justice, and stakeholders have identified that technology has a particular capacity to facilitate collaboration.126 Following a workshop convened
120 For example, United States Legal Services Corporation TIG grants have provided over $40 Million in grants to develop and implement technology in the USA. See James E. Cabral and others, “Using Technology to Enhance Access to Justice” (2012) 26 Harv.J.L.& Tech 243 at 244. See also: Turner and Toy-Cronin, above n 105; Katherine Alteneder and others The Role of Technology in the Access Solution (National Centre for State Courts, Summit on the Future of Self-Represented Litigation, March 2005).
121 Legal Services Corporation “2022 LSC Technology Initiative Grant Funding Notice” (02 April 2022) Federal Register <www.federalregister.gov>.
122 Legal Services Corporation Report of The Summit on the Use of Technology to Expand Access to Justice (2013) at 1.
123 See for example Steps to Justice <www.stepstojustice.ca>; Justice Connect <www.justiceconnect.org.au>; Ohio Legal Help <www.ohiolegalhelp.org>; A2J Author <www.a2jauthor.org>; MyLawBC <www.mylawbc.com>; Legal Navigator <www.legalnav.org>.
124 Steps to Justice, above n 123; Justice Connect, above n 123.
125 See for example Turner and Toy-Cronin, above n 105; New Zealand Law Society, above n 34; Toy-Cronin and others, above n 104; Boddington, above n 8.
126 Toy-Cronin and others, above n 104, at 2; Turner and Toy-Cronin, above n 105, at 42.
by Chief Justice Winkelmann and the Secretary for Justice in 2020, a Working Group was tasked with creating a strategic plan for civil access to justice in Aotearoa.127 In April 2022, the Advisory Group released a consultation draft of a national strategy entitled ‘Wayfinding for Access to Justice.’128 The consultation document identifies that technology presents an important context and opportunity for current access to justice work, and prioritises innovation in access to justice reform.129
Public initiatives designed to improve access to justice for low-income people have historically focused on providing access to a lawyer for free, on a loan basis, or at little cost.130 As understandings of access to justice have broadened, it is clear that access to a lawyer is not sufficient to ensure effective access to justice for everyone.131 The State must now invest in a broader range of measures including advocacy, legal information, self-help resources, and more, in order to improve outcomes for people in the justice gap. The existing framework and funding allocations for delivering free and low-cost legal services is inadequate to meet the present need.132 I contend that deploying initiatives driven by technology is the most effective strategy to facilitate the move towards providing a broader range of access to justice measures.
Fundamentally, adopting a policy of technological innovation in the provision of access to justice promises to deliver better outcomes for people in the justice gap at a lower long-term cost.133 In a resource-scarce sector, the value of such potential cannot be overstated. Technology can provide better outcomes by targeting key barriers to access like geography, cost, and information factors. It can do so by providing online legal services to people in rural areas, improving the availability of free online legal information and resources to support self-help methods, and improving the flexibility of legal services.134 Technology also facilitates data and information sharing, thus
127 Ministry of Justice, above n 104.
128 Toy-Cronin and others, above n 104.
129 At 14.
130 Coumarelos and others, above n 10, at 3. The main initiatives are legal aid, pro bono associations, community law.
131 See Chapter Two, Part II.
132 This has been proven by recent statistics on unmet legal need and the justice gap: World Justice Project Global Insights on Access to Justice, above n 5, at 77; Colmar Brunton, above n 13.
133 Alteneder and others, above n 120, at 1.
134 See for example Turner and Toy-Cronin, above n 105; Above n 122.
improving collaboration and minimising the duplication of effort.135 This is significantly beneficial, as the fragmented nature of innovation efforts to date has been a major concern for access to justice stakeholders in Aotearoa.136 While technology tools may bear a substantial up- front cost, they can reduce strain on financial resources over time by maximising the efficiency of human assistance.137
Promising developments in Aotearoa and other jurisdictions support the premise that legal technology can and should be central to improving access to justice in modern society.
VI. Conclusion
The wealth of current evidence of the justice gap demonstrates the urgent need for change worldwide. In Aotearoa and beyond, people are suffering hardships because of the inaccessibility of justice systems, and the most vulnerable groups in society are faring the worst. The evidence also offers an opportunity to change the way we approach access to justice. Adopting the concept of ‘effective access to justice’, denoting an outcomes-focused, equitable perspective will maximise access to justice work by making it more tailored to peoples’ real experiences, based on information about the everyday legal problems people face and the way they deal with them. I have argued that the Government and the legal profession should lead in this work and should look to technology to drive innovative change in the access to justice sector. In the next chapter, I will identify the challenges associated with implementing technological solutions. I will argue that stakeholders will need to work together to lay the foundations for widespread reform of Aotearoa’s access to justice measures.
135 Turner and Toy-Cronin, above n 105, at 2.
136 Toy-Cronin and others, above n 104.
137 Law Society of England and Wales Technology, Access to Justice and the Rule of Law - Is technology the key to unlocking access to justice innovation? (2019).
Chapter Three
Legal Technology - Lessons from the World
I. Introduction
Developments in legal technology are occurring rapidly in jurisdictions similar to Aotearoa.138 Advances in legal technology in Aotearoa have been fewer in comparison, however Roger Smith suggests developers may benefit from being in that position; learning from others’ successes and failures.139
In this chapter, I will specify the type of legal technology I argue must drive improvements in addressing the justice gap. I will survey two technology initiatives from Australia and The Netherlands and consider what our Government can learn from their mistakes. Lastly, I will discuss how digital exclusion and public distrust of technology present ongoing challenges to implementing legal technology in the justice gap.
II. What is Legal Technology?
I argue a specific type of legal technology is necessary to improve access to justice in Aotearoa.
The commercial legal technology industry is in a stage of rapid global growth, and many law firms are focused on how they can use legal technology to improve their businesses.140 “Legal technology” in the for-profit legal sector is any type of technology, usually software, which is used to support or improve the provision of legal information and services.141 Case management
138 See above n 123.
139 Roger Smith “Nadia Falters: teetering technology in the service of access to justice” (6 November 2017) Law, Technology and Access to Justice <www.law-tech-a2j.org>.
140 Roger Smith “Technology and Access to Justice - a Help or a Hindrance?” (20 March 2019) Law, Technology and Access to Justice <www.law-tech-a2j.org>.
141 Bethany Barrett “What Is Legal Tech, and Why Is It Important?” (21 June 2022) Zegal <www.zegal.com>.
systems, document assembly applications, and legal research assistance applications are some common examples of legal technology used in for-profit legal practice.
Legal technology looks quite different in the access to justice sector. It must deal with three features separating the commercial legal sector from the access to justice sector, which are identified by Roger Smith.142 Firstly, users are often unable to pay for services. Secondly, the work is done by an often uncoordinated network of community centres and clinics, legal aid providers, and pro bono providers. These services are under-resourced and often do not have the basic requirements to implement a standardised technology application.143 Thirdly, digital exclusion is a significant problem in the access to justice sector, which I will discuss later in this chapter.144 In contrast, commercial legal technology products generally rely on making profit, using businesses’ recorded data, and automating common business processes followed in law firms to be successfully implemented.145 These features make most commercial legal technology unfit for use in access to justice measures. 146
The implication of these observations is that “legal technology” used in access to justice is likely to require specific design for an access-to-justice-related purpose to be effective.
Throughout this dissertation, I use the term “legal technology” to describe bespoke technology applications or tools, which are developed in response to an access to justice problem and are designed with a user-centric approach. User-centred technological design is the process of designing technology from the perspective of the end user, based on how they are likely to interact with it.147 Bespoke legal technology is more likely to improve outcomes for people in the justice gap because it is designed with their specific problems and perspectives in mind.
142Smith, above n 140. 143Smith, above n 140. 144Smith, above n 140. 145Smith, above n 140. 146Smith, above n 140.
A good example of the kind of legal technology contemplated by this dissertation is the ‘Steps to Justice’ platform run by Community Legal Education Ontario (CLEO).148 Steps to Justice is a website providing Canadians with easy to understand, digestible legal information about a range of civil and criminal matters. It uses a plain language question-and-answer style format to inform users about their rights and options in relation to everyday legal problems as well as criminal matters. Users can input search terms into the main search bar and the website will make recommendations about which areas they might find helpful. Alternatively, users can browse topics from a menu. Users can then explore their options or actions they should take via step-by- step guidance.149 The website embeds links to community services, social services, and application forms where they relate to the information displayed on the page. Guided pathways help users to fill out legal forms and draft letters by asking interview-style questions and auto-filling the forms and letters based on user responses.150 Checklists and self-help guides provide practical support for people looking to resolve their own legal problems.151 Live chat and email support is also available.
The website is free, practical, easy to understand, and connects users to other services they are likely to benefit from based on the problems the user is researching. Significant thought has clearly gone into the design of the website.152 Its user-centred design ensures it is appropriate for the people likely to be using it and fulfils its purpose; to empower people to understand their rights and take action to deal with their everyday legal problems.153
A number of Government websites in Aotearoa offer practical, plain-language legal information and provide useful links to other sites,154 but they tend to be very fragmented, along the lines of the responsibilities of the relevant Government department. Finding the correct information can be a ‘hit and miss’ exercise.
148 Steps to Justice, above n 123.
149 Turner and Toy-Cronin, above n 105, at 46.
150 Steps to Justice, above n 123,
151 Steps to Justice, above n 123.
152 Some of Steps to Justices’ design considerations are discussed in Turner and Toy-Cronin, above n 105, at 46.
153Law Society of Ontario “Public Resources - Steps to Justice” <www.lso.ca>.
154See for example Commerce Commission <www.comcom.govt.nz>.
I argue that the Government should invest in developing bespoke legal technology to address the justice gap in Aotearoa. In the following Part, I will discuss how examples from other jurisdictions can help guide our Government’s investment decisions and development efforts, when it comes to this bespoke legal technology.
III. Lessons from Australia and The Netherlands
Aotearoa can benefit from observing the examples set by other countries to avoid mistakes and their damaging consequences. I will discuss the lessons Aotearoa can learn from the Robodebt “fiasco” in Australia, and the Rechtwijzer platform in The Netherlands.
Robodebt was a disastrous technology initiative deployed in 2016 by the Australian Government to generate government savings. The technology used for the Robodebt initiative was a “data- matching” process intended to automate a particular activity, rather than to respond to an access to justice problem. It therefore falls outside my definition of “legal technology”. Nevertheless, the Robodebt saga sheds light on the danger of seeing technology as a “silver bullet” which can improve systems and replace human intervention.156
The Robodebt initiative was designed to automate the practice of identifying incidents of overpayment of welfare benefits, and to recover debt from recipients who had been overpaid by the Department of Human Services (DHS).157 It used a data-matching process which compared welfare recipients’ reported income against their actual income using data from the Australian Tax Office (ATO).158
When discrepancies were identified, automatic notices were sent out requiring recipients to prove they had not been overpaid. Automatic bills were sent out to thousands of recipients where the
155Peter Whiteford “Robodebt Was a Fiasco With a Cost We Have Yet to Fully Appreciate” (online ed, 16 November 2020) The Conversation <www.theconversation.com>.
156 Above n 137, at 19.
157 Whiteford, above n 155.
158 ABC News “A Robodebt Royal Commission Has Been Announced. Here’s How We Got to This Point” (26 August 2022) <www.abc.net.au>.
discrepancy was not accounted for, invoicing them for debts dating back to 2010.159 Many people claimed the debts were false or inaccurate.160 The Robodebt scheme had significantly reduced human oversight in the process of identifying overpayments and verifying debts, whereas DHS workers had previously verified invoices for debts on a case-by-case basis.161
The data-matching technique proved deeply flawed, and between 2016 and 2020 the scheme unlawfully claimed false debts of around AUD$2 billion from approximately 433,000 people.162 The scheme was shut down in May 2020 after an Ombudsman report and two Senate inquiries found the scheme was unfair, inaccurate, and caused harm to vulnerable people.163 The largest class action lawsuit in Australian history led to the Government agreeing to an out-of-court settlement of AUD$1.8 billion in June 2021.164 A Royal Commission to inquire into the Robodebt Scheme is currently underway.165 Robodebt has been named a “policy fiasco” by journalists and has had prolonged, drastic consequences for thousands of welfare recipients.166
Robodebt serves as a cautionary tale about the risk of delegating decision-making responsibilities to technology and removing human oversight. Notably, the problems with the initiative were not solely caused by Robodebt itself, because the same data-matching process had been used by DHS for many years and was known to be faulty.167 As such, a 1993 Department of Social Services report on data-matching had assured that all recommendations made by the data-matching technology were subject to consistent human cross-checking to avoid incorrect identification of overpayments.168 The change triggering the Robodebt catastrophe in 2016 was the DHS decision to reduce or remove human oversight of that data-matching technology.169
159 Geoffrey Mead and Barbara Barbosa Neves “Raging Against The Machine: What We Can Learn From The Failure of Robodebt” (25 August 2022) ABC News <www.abc.net.au>.
160 ABC News, above n 158.
161 Whiteford, above n 155.
162 ABC News, above n 158.
163 ABC News, above n 158.
164 ABC News, above n 158; Whiteford, above n 155.
165 Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme “About the Royal Commission”
<www.robodebt.royalcommission.gov.au>.
166 Whiteford, above n 155.
167 Mead and Barbosa Neves, above n 159.
168 Australia Department of Social Security and Data-Matching Agency Data-Matching Program : report on progress (1993) <http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-1514897054> .
169 Mead and Barbosa Neves, above n 159.
The DHS approach represents a dangerous binary perspective which assumes technology can remove the need for human intervention. The danger of this perspective in the context of access to justice is significant. Firstly, the risk that errors will go unchecked if human intervention is removed is an unacceptable risk in the context of people’s legal rights. Secondly, if technology replaces human assistance in access to justice, the loss of human contact may result in the dehumanization of legal services, exacerbating the emotional burden of resolving legal problems and alienating vulnerable people.170 This would undoubtedly worsen outcomes for people in the justice gap. Lastly, people who are less able to use technology may be excluded from access to justice measures if human assistance is reduced or replaced.171 I will discuss this point further, later in the chapter.
Legal technology must be thought of as a tool which can reduce unnecessary burdens on workers and enable them to perform their most important functions properly, rather than a “silver bullet”.172 It is counterproductive to assume technology will ever entirely replace the need for human assistance in access to justice measures.173
Rechtwijzer, which could be translated as ‘signpost to law’,174 was a trailblazing Dutch website which offered interactive information on everyday legal problems and an online means of resolving matters relating to divorce.175 The platform was established by the Dutch Legal Aid Board (the Board) in 2007 and enjoyed international recognition as an early success story for legal technology in access to justice.176
170 Eleanor De of City, “Janus-Faced Justice? The Role of Legal Technology in the Provision of Access to Justice” (2019) 19 LegInfManag 63 at 63.
171Richard Zorza Preliminary Thoughts on Blue Sky Technology Driven Access and Decision Systems
(HarvJL&Tech Occasional Paper Series, 2013) at 1.
172 Above n 137, at 19.
173Cabral and others, above n 120, at 302.
174 Laura Kistemaker “Rechtwijzer and Uitelkaar.nl. - Dutch Experiences with ODR for Divorce” (2021) 59 FamCourtRev 232 at 232.
175 Kistemaker, above n 174, at 233.
176 Roger Smith “Rechtwijzer – Why Online Supported Dispute Resolution is Hard to Implement” (20 June 2017) Law, Technology and Access to Justice <www.law-tech-a2j.org>.
By 2017, however, the Rechtwijzer’s organisational structure had disintegrated, and the website was rolled back.177 A review of the project’s decline suggests it was caused by the addition of the ambitious online dispute resolution (ODR) tool, which ultimately did not have the necessary base of support to succeed.178 The Rechtwijzer situation highlights the importance of having a strong organisational structure behind legal technology, and getting the basics right before looking to expand.
Rechtwijzer began as a site for legal information for everyday legal problems including consumer, tenancy, and debt problems.179 The website was a first in the way it encouraged interaction from the user and tailored information to them throughout their “justice journey”, a concept which the Canadian Steps to Justice website now embodies.180 “Guided pathways”, where information is presented in question-and-answer style, are a key feature of the “justice journey” format. In an attempt to encourage more users to resolve problems and disputes themselves, the Board partnered with the Hague Institute on the Innovation of Law (HiiL) and software company Modria in 2014 to develop an ODR tool for divorce: Rechtwijzer uit elkaar (Rechtwijzer divorce).181
The tool, now operated by HiiL, sought to assist separating couples through divorce by facilitating a structured conversation on the matters a divorcing couple are required to agree upon under Dutch law.182 These included housing, separation of property, matters relating to children of the relationship, ongoing finances, and future communication. The tool had a strong conflict prevention focus, and formatted questions in a way that encouraged users to identify common ground rather than differences.183 Once both parties had submitted their views on a range of matters, they were invited to respond to the other party’s views. Once agreement was reached on essential matters, the divorce and parenting Agreements would be reviewed by a lawyer and
177Roger Smith “Classical Lessons from the Rechtwijzer – Conversation with Professor Barendrecht” (22 June 2017) Law, Technology and Access to Justice <www.law-tech-a2j.org>.
178 Smith, above n 177.
179 Kistemaker, above n 174, at 232.
180 Smith, above n 177.
181 Kistemaker, above n 174, at 233.
182 Kistemaker, above n 174, at 233.
183 Smith, above n 177.
formalised in court, finalising the divorce.184 The approach of integrating preliminary information about legal matters with ODR was radical, and garnered huge international interest.185
Despite positive responses from the initiative,186 the Board decided by the end of 2016 the Government would no longer invest in the platform. The tool was forced to shut down, and the original Rechtwijzer website was rolled back.187 Two major factors contributed to the Rechtwijzer platform’s demise: HiiL’s overly ambitious goals for the Rechtwijzer divorce tool uit elkaar, and the complex partnership structure that sat behind Rechtwijzer, consisting of a Government sponsored legal aid board, a private software company, and a not-for-profit institution.188
The tool was ambitious for several reasons. First, HiiL envisaged the tool would be globally applicable. They spent time and resources presenting Rechtwijzer internationally and looking to collaborate with organisations to implement similar ODR models in other jurisdictions.189 But the focus on international collaborations diverted attention away from developing a strong basic platform in The Netherlands.190
Secondly, the tool offered very little possibility of human interaction. Support was provided over the phone and via email, but HiiL experimented with the possibility of a completely online model.191 People were not yet prepared to use an ODR tool without human engagement, especially for divorce settlements, and the platform struggled with low engagement from users.192
Thirdly, HiiL chose to pilot the tool for divorce settlements. Divorce tends to be a highly complex kind of dispute resolution, with implications in many areas of the law and a strong emotional nature. Merely agreeing to a voluntary resolution procedure can be a challenge for divorcing
184 Kistemaker, above n 174, at 233; Smith, above n 177.
185 Smith, above n 177.
186 Kistemaker, above n 174, at 233; Smith, above n 176.
187 Kistemaker, above n 174, at 233.
188 Kistemaker, above n 174, at 236; Smith, above n 177; Smith, above n 176.
189 Kistemaker, above n 174, at 236; Smith, above n 176.
190 Roger Smith “The Rechtwijzer Rises from the Ashes – An Interview with Laura Kistemaker of Justice42” (9 February 2020) Law, Technology and Access to Justice <www.law-tech-a2j.org>.
191 Kistemaker, above n 174, at 236.
192 Kistemaker, above n 174, at 236.
couples, and ultimately the Rechtwijzer platform did not generate enough user interest to maintain financial independence from government funding.193
Finally, the tool required lawyers to significantly change their role in advising on divorce. Lawyers took on a ‘reviewer’ role, rather than giving initial advice and directing the process as they usually would. This has now been recognised as “a new type of family law sub-specialism,”194 yet at the time, Roger Smith indicated the system was seen to be working in opposition to lawyers rather than assisting them in their work.195.196
The Rechtwijzer solution tried to do too much, too soon, and as a result it had low engagement. However, the initiative’s “unwieldy” organisational structure was ultimately responsible for the program being shut down.197 Laura Kistemaker and Maurits Barendrecht, who were both involved with the project, allude to discord between the Board, HiiL, and Modria in their implementation and oversight of Rechtwijzer uit elkaar.198 In Barendrecht’s words, “the necessary cooperation processes did not materialise” between the groups, and he suggests the Board was not fully committed to the project.199 It is revealing that the Board made no efforts to market the tool.200
Roger Smith speculates that differing financial perspectives played a role in the discord. Whereas commercial companies and privately funded organisations such as Modria and HiiL can afford to try, fail, and learn from their mistakes, Government-funded organisations like the Board do not have that luxury.201 This explains why, when the Rechtwijzer failed to generate enough revenue to support itself in the first eighteen months, the Board considered it too risky to continue to supply funding, and the initiative was shut down.202
193 Smith, above n 176.
194 Kistemaker, above n 174, at 236.
195 Smith, above n 177.
196 Smith, above n 177.
197 Smith, above n 177.
198 Smith, above n 177; Kistemaker, above n 174, at 236.
199 Smith, above n 176.
200 Smith, above n 176.
201 Smith, above n 177.
The Rechtwijzer platform remains an example of excellent technological design. Aspects of the Rechtwijzer model have been replicated in Canadian platform MyLawBC’s mediation tool, and the Steps to Justice “guided pathways”.203 Rather than technological failure, the platform’s demise was caused by HiiL’s unrealistic goals and poor coordination between the three managing entities. The Rechtwijzer ODR tool was reformulated into a program named Justice42.204 Justice42 contains a less ambitious divorce tool and operates on a hybrid online and in-person model.205
Kistemaker, who is the new programme’s co-founder and chief operating officer, acknowledges they have had to learn from mistakes made with Rechtwijzer. 206 She points out the need for a governing organisation dedicated entirely to a complex project like Rechtwijzer, and the importance of beginning with “modest” ambitions.207 Failing to do so risks wasting resources and losing the support of target users. In sum, then, our own Government should consider the Rechtwijzer example when creating management structures for access to justice projects.
IV. Two Ongoing Challenges
Digital exclusion and public distrust of technology are two concerns which consistently arise in global attempts to introduce technology in the public sector. Various examples suggest the Government and developers of legal technology will be required to deal with these challenges on an ongoing basis if they move forward with technological measures to enhance access to justice. I will discuss these two challenges in turn.
The paradox of legal technology is that its potential to improve access to justice for many users is accompanied by the risk that it will worsen access issues for others. As Government and public
203 Smith, above n 177.; MyLawBC, above n 123; Steps to Justice, above n 123.
204 Justice42 <www.justice42.com>.
205 Smith, above n 190.
206 Smith, above n 190.
207 Kistemaker, above n 174, at 236; Smith, above n 192.
services focus more on offering online delivery by default, a growing number of people in Aotearoa face “digital exclusion” from those critical services.208
Digital exclusion occurs where “people face barriers to participating fully in society because of information and services being online”.209 Some causes of digital exclusion are a lack of access to internet and a device, low literacy and digital literacy, language barriers, disabilities, and unwillingness to be online.210 An investigation into digital exclusion by the Citizens Advice Bureau (the CAB Report) recorded 4,379 instances of digital exclusion in a three month period, indicating it is a significant problem in Aotearoa.211 Digital exclusion affects people in a range of demographics, however certain groups were represented highly in the statistics compared to their representation in the general population. Māori and Pasifika individuals were particularly overrepresented.212
Overall, the survey results show that many CAB clients were frustrated and isolated by a lack of choice about whether to use digital means to access essential services. 213 People also felt the use of technology was not prioritised for the benefit of the people.214 These findings are consistent with reports from some technology initiatives around the world. For example after the demise of the Rechtwijzer platform, Justice42 COO Laura Kistemaker admitted that:215
...ultimately, the belief that the whole divorce process could be dealt with fully online was too much for people. Purely online will work for a specific – and growing – group but not all. Some will always need individual assistance in the traditional way.
208 Above n 56, at 4.
209 Above n 56, at 5.
210 Above n 56, at 6.
211 Above n 56, at 5.
212 20% of all digitally excluded CAB clients were Māori, and 14% were Pasifika. See Citizen’s Advice Bureaux, above n 56, at 5.
213 Above n 56, at 6-7.
214 Above n 56, at 6-7.
215 Smith, above n 192.
An important change made to the Justice42 platform is the addition of “case managers” to provide offline assistance, guidance, and advice in a quasi-legal capacity.216 The desire for this kind of human guidance had been clear in the earlier model, and surveys of the platform’s client base have seen high levels of satisfaction with the new hybrid model of service delivery.217
An example from the United Kingdom demonstrates that digital exclusion occurs even where people are required to use basic technologies, like telephones, in place of face-to-face services. In 2013, budget cut reforms made under the The Legal Aid, Sentencing, and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) introduced the Civil Legal Advice telephone line (the Gateway) as the only way for individuals to access help for problems relating to debt, discrimination, and special educational needs.218 People seeking advice in those areas were required to call a non-legally trained operator who assessed whether the caller qualified for legal aid and whether their query fell within the Gateway’s mandate. This process was repeated by a “specialist” at the next stage, who then considered whether to refer the caller for face-to-face advice or advise them over the phone.219 In the year between 2016 and 2017, the numbers of callers referred for face-to-face advice in the UK were fifty-five debt-related calls, one special educational needs call, and zero discrimination-related calls.220 A UK Law Society review of the Gateway found it was inhibiting access to justice by making legal aid unavailable or hard to access for many who needed it.221
Turner and Toy-Cronin affirm that legal technology should complement face-to-face services, relieving some of the burden from community organisations like Community Law and CAB, and allowing more availability of services for those who are vulnerable to digital exclusion. 222 Experience clearly shows that users should be given a choice to access services face-to-face rather than online, and legal technology should operate on a hybrid system, incorporating easy access to human support and guidance.223
216 Kistemaker, above n 174, at 236.
217 Kistemaker, above n 174, at 237.
218 Polly Brendon PLP Research Briefing Paper - The Civil Legal Advice Telephone Gateway (Public Law Project, 2018) at 1.
219 Brendon, above n 218, at 1.
220 Brendon, above n 218, at 1.
221 The Law Society “LASPO Act – What’s Changing” (18 August 2022) <www.lawsociety.org.uk>.
222 Turner and Toy-Cronin, above n 105, at 7.
223 Above n 56, at 7; Turner and Toy-Cronin, above n 105; Kistemaker, above n 174, at 236.
Public distrust in technology is an ongoing concern for organisations running legal technology initiatives. Some sites like Steps to Justice directly address user distrust by answering the question “how do I know I can trust Steps to Justice?” in a section of the website.224 Overseas experiences show that distrust arises for several reasons, including from people’s negative experiences with technology, concerns about protection of their private information, and suspicion arising from a lack of understanding about the technology.
The Australian experience with Robodebt highlighted the potential lasting impact a failed technology initiative can have on trust. In the midst of problems arising from the Robodebt scheme in 2017, an Australian Government initiative the “Nadia project” was sidelined, with reporters speculating the Government had been “spooked” by the Robodebt experience.225 The Nadia project was a virtual assistant designed to guide people through the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).226 The assistant had a digitally constructed human face, the natural voice of actress Cate Blanchett, and used artificial intelligence (AI) 227 technology to answer users’ questions.228
One of the creators Marie Johnson urged the Government to move forward with the project, insisting that Nadia was a success and had the ability to delivery huge benefits to people with disabilities in Australia.229 Nevertheless, the Government withheld launching Nadia into its training phase, even after spending over AUD$3.5 million on its design and development.230 All signs suggest the Government lost its appetite for risk following the public’s response to Robodebt. Indeed, Australian Human Rights Commissioner Ed Santow noted “a growing community distrust
224 Steps to Justice, above n 123.
225 Andrew Probyn “NDIS’ Virtual Assistant Nadia, Voiced by Cate Blanchett, Stalls After Recent Census, Robo- Debt Bungles” (21 September 2017) ABC News < www.abc.net.au>.
226 Smith, above n 139.
227 LexisNexis UK considers artificial intelligence to be any system capable of performing tasks utilising some aspects of human intelligence such as logic, reasoning, learning and deduction. See Mark Dodd “Artificial Intelligence, Law & Hyperbole” LexisNexis <www.lexisnexis.co.uk>.
228 Smith, above n 139.
229 Stephen Easton “Nadia: The Curious Case of the Digital Missing Person” (3 April 2019)
230 Smith, above n 139.
of these new technologies” after the Robodebt saga and considered AI and other new technology should be treated with caution.231
Distrust is heightened when people have limited knowledge about technology. This is often the case with AI technology, where the lack of transparency as to how it works leads to suspicion. A global AI survey conducted by Ipsos, a private research firm, confirmed that people who reported to be knowledgeable about AI were more likely to consider it trustworthy. 232 Just as transparency in the judicial system is highly valued for access to justice, the Government should ensure users understand how the technology works to the extent that is feasible and should particularly focus on providing reasoning for any decisions or recommendations technology makes.233 For example, if a system identifies that a user is not eligible for a particular benefit, it should give reasons for that finding. This improves trust that the system works correctly and empowers users to question or appeal certain decisions.234
Organisations must also grapple with user concerns surrounding data and private information. Data from private research firm Ipsos revealed that across 29 countries, only 36 per cent of respondents trust private organisations to use their data “in the right way,” and only 39 per cent trust their national government.235 Concerns about personal information may prevent people from using legal technology; the organisation running MyLawBC found that usage increased after they ceased requesting personal information such as postcodes from users.236
The UK Law Society recommended a “data trustee” for the access to justice sector to combat this problem.237 A data trust is an independent entity responsible for the collection, processing, and storing of data. 238 The “data trustee” acts as a steward for the data and owes duties to the people
231 Josh Taylor “People Should Be Held Accountable For AI and Algorithm Errors, Rights Commissioner Says” (16 December 2019) <www.theguardian.com>.
232 Ipsos “Opinions About AI Vary Depending On Countries’ Level of Economic Development” (5 January 2022)
233 Cabral and others, above n 120, at 302.
234 Cabral and others, above n 120, at 302.
235 Ipsos Global Citizens & Data Privacy – An Ipsos-World Economic Forum Project (World Economic Forum, 2019) at 4.
236 Smith, above n 140. Note Roger Smith does not provide a reference for this point.
237 Above n 137, at 10.
238 BPE Solicitors, Pinsent Masons and Chris Reed Data trusts: Legal and Governance Considerations (Queen Mary University of London, 2019) at 10.
whose data is being held. These duties can be contractually or otherwise legally binding.239 Our Government should consider the potential for a data trust to be established alongside legal technology in Aotearoa to ensure the safe handling of sensitive information and improve the public’s trust in technology.
The Government can also mitigate distrust in technology by starting small, and incrementally expanding the scope of legal technology.240 If a legal technology tool proves to be successful in one task, the public are more likely to view it favourably as it expands. 241 This approach has proven successful for the Rechtwijzer’s successor program.242
Notwithstanding the need for caution, room for experimentation must be preserved. To facilitate progress in technological innovation while regulating risks, the Government should allocate specific funding to experimentation and create ‘safe spaces’ for testing new ideas.243 “Sandpits” and Innovation programs are two examples of safe spaces being used in other jurisdictions.244 Innovation will be stunted if the Government and developers cannot accept a degree of risk in trialing new tools, as demonstrated by the abandonment of the Nadia project in Australia.245
It is imperative the Government implement measures to mitigate the risk of digital exclusion and the problem of technological distrust in the process of developing legal technology.
V. Conclusion
Bespoke legal technology is a powerful tool for improving access to justice, but mistakes and flaws in its design and implementation can have drastic consequences for users.246 Overseas experiences
239 Above n 238, at 10.
240 Smith, above n 140.
241 Smith, above n 140.
242 Smith, above n 192.
243 Turner and Toy-Cronin, above n 105, at 40, 42.
244 Turner and Toy-Cronin, above n 105, at 42. See Solicitors Regulation Authority, “SRA Innovate” https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/resources/innovate/sra-innovate. See also: Pia Andrews, “How to scale impact through innovation and transformation” The Mandarin 8 October 2019 www.themandarin.com.au.
245 Above n 225.
246 See Chapter Three, Part III.
with technology in the public sector serve as useful lessons about the challenges involved with deploying technology initiatives, and our Government should be cognisant of these challenges.
The Government must ensure its approach to technology is cautious, realistic, and complementary to face-to-face services offered by community groups such as CLCA and CAB. It must ensure legal technology initiatives are supported by effective organisational structures. Lastly, the Government must create measures to facilitate ongoing developments in legal technology.
Chapter Four
The Case for a National Portal System in Aotearoa
I. Introduction
I have argued that legal technology must form part of our response to the justice gap in Aotearoa. I have described the challenges, lessons, and responsibilities that our Government must consider when using legal technology to address the justice gap. I have argued that our Government bears that responsibility, based on the ideological foundations of access to justice. In this chapter, I propose a model that can help the Government discharge that responsibility effectively. This model is a national portal system underpinned by the philosophy of Integrated Service Delivery (ISD). For the reasons discussed in this chapter, this model will equip the Government to begin addressing the key causes of the justice gap discussed in Chapter Two. In addition, as I discuss more in this chapter, this model will facilitate valuable collaboration amongst stakeholders in the access to justice sector.
I begin this chapter by discussing the benefits of adopting an ISD philosophy in access to justice. I then propose a model for a national portal system using international examples as blueprints, and I examine how the model may be implemented in Aotearoa. Finally, I critically assess the capacity of the national portal system to help close the justice gap, and I address its limitations.
II. The Integrated Service Delivery Philosophy
Integrated Service Delivery is a way of delivering services which involves “coordinated delivery around a particular issue or need.”247 Therefore, the Integrated Service Delivery (ISD) philosophy will maximise stakeholder efforts to close Aotearoa’s justice gap.
In the context of Government projects or services, ISD might involve vertical integration between Government agencies, non-Governmental organisations (NGOs), and community groups. ISD
247 Gray, above n 261, at 10.
may also involve horizontal integration across Government agencies, or a combination of both.248 The purpose of integrating entities and coordinating their work is “to deliver services that are more comprehensive and cohesive as well as... more accessible and more responsive to the needs of [the community].”249 ISD philosophy helps organisations reach their shared desired outcomes more efficiently.250
Integration can take different forms in practice, however its essential features remain the same.251 Later in this Chapter I will discuss the form of ISD which should be implemented in the national portal system’s “back-end” structure.
Prichard, Purdon, and Chaplyn discuss the main features of integration.252 Integrated organisations share a vision and philosophy which they have established and agreed upon together. They focus on shared outcomes and have a single point of contact for the community. They pool funding and administer resources collectively.253 The result is that administrative burdens are divided, funding is allocated based on mutual agreement about the most pressing needs, and a shared vision ensures everyone is united in pursuit of common goals.254
Pooled funding structures are particularly beneficial to developing legal technology. By presenting a united front in striving to close the justice gap, a portal system may make it easier or more attractive for developers to concentrate their efforts on finding technology solutions for this purpose.255 This could be further facilitated through joint grant funding as has been successful in the US.256
248 Gray, above n 261, at 10.
249 Paul Prichard, Susan Purdon and Jennifer Chaplyn Moving Forward Together: A Guide To Support The Integration Of Service Delivery For Children And Families (Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, The Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne, Tasmanian Early Years Foundation, 2010) at 4.
250 Gray, above n 261, at 11.
251 Gray, above n 261, at 14.
252 Prichard, Purdon and Chaplyn, above n 249, at 9. 253 Prichard, Purdon and Chaplyn, above n 251, at 9. 254 Prichard, Purdon and Chaplyn, above n 251, at 9.
255 There is a lack of innovation specifically aimed at making legal services more accessible. See above n 137, at 11.
256 Federal Register, above n 121.
Integration is a current focus in healthcare internationally and is now considered “vital to the delivery of efficient and effective care” for patients.257 The impetus for health sector reform is directly applicable to the legal sector.
Integration of the health sector is being pursued in recognition of the fact that peoples’ health problems do not occur in isolation. Structural divisions between primary and secondary care258 are therefore inefficient from a patient perspective.259 For example, very ill people may experience mental health illnesses like depression as a result of being unwell. To have these problems addressed, a patient must attend different specialists who may not communicate well with one another. The burden of this fragmented approach usually falls on the patient.260
Treating the entirety of a patient’s problems in a “wraparound”261 service is considered beneficial to the patient and the system as a whole.262 In the UK, integration is additionally being proposed as a way to maximise resources, particularly funding, in the National Health Service (NHS).263
These problems are applicable to the legal sector. People in the justice gap often encounter multiple legal problems at once.264 People often find the justice system confusing and inefficient, preventing them from accessing justice.265 Resources are scarce, and a lack of coordination among stakeholders has been identified as a major concern in Aotearoa.266 The need to coordinate efforts around a singular strategy is clear. Access to justice problems are best addressed via shared solutions.267
257 Health Navigator New Zealand “Integrated Care” <www.healthnavigator.org.nz>.
258 The difference between a primary healthcare provider and a specialist. 259 The Kings Fund “Integrated Care” < https://www.kingsfund.org.uk>. 260 Above n 259.
261 See Alison Gray Integrated Service Delivery and Regional Co-ordination: A Literature Review (Gray Matter Research Ltd, 2002) at 33.
262 Above n 259.
263 Above n 259.
264 Chapter Two, Part II.
265 Chapter Two, Part III.
266 Toy-Cronin and others, above n 104, at 2.
267 The Access to Justice Advisory Group was established on this premise. See above n 137, at 12.
In particular, an ISD philosophy would address concerns about the fragmented nature of access to justice work in Aotearoa. At present, legal information can be found on a plethora of ministry websites as well as in Community Law’s Online Manual and the CAB website (CAB). People can seek advice for legal problems at CLCA or CAB, from lawyers, or from other sources such as employment advocates and trade union representatives.268 The landscape of dispute resolution entities includes the courts, specialist tribunals, ministry authorities, and privately provided services such as the Building Disputes Tribunal.269
There is currently no system for collaboration between this collection of organisations. The ‘Wayfinding for Access to Justice’ consultation document identifies this as a priority:270
Better coordination could lead to more collaboration, less duplication, easier identification of gaps, and the opportunity to learn from each other’s successes and failures. This would ensure that the limited resources we all have to work with could be used most efficiently.
Integration would also bring experts in various fields together to work towards shared solutions. Innovation in civil access to justice can be confusing and stressful for stakeholders, therefore integrating their work with developers of technology and strategy groups ensures everyone benefits from others’ strengths and expertise.271
The Government and other access to justice organisations would benefit from participating in a system operating within an ISD philosophy. Adopting the philosophy within the system’s “back- end” organisation could prevent system failures seen in the Rechtwijzer example from Chapter 3. In that example, the platform’s demise was caused by an unwieldy organizational structure, and poor coordination between the three managing entities.
268 Toy-Cronin and others, above n 104, at 14.
269 Toy-Cronin and others, above n 104, at 15. See Building Disputes Tribunal
<https://www.buildingdisputestribunal.co.nz/adjudication/>.
270 At 2.
271 Above n 137, at 9.
III. Modelling a National Portal System
I propose a legal technology strategy to close the justice gap in Aotearoa should take the form of a national portal system. Portal systems from other jurisdictions can provide inspiration for its design.
The United States Legal Services Corporation (LSC) outlined a plan for legal technology which provides a helpful description of the portal idea.272
A portal is a central website which contains information, guidance, and connections to services to help people deal with everyday legal problems. The LSC envisions a portal which undertakes a ‘triage process’ to guide users towards the assistance they are most likely to require.273 The triage process involves asking users a series of questions to assess their legal need and their circumstances.274 These circumstances include users’ digital literacy levels, legal capability, and general accessibility needs, which would determine the way information is presented and the options which are suggested to them.275
Users would be directed to identify their problem, perhaps using “branching logic” questions.276 Branching logic involves altering subsequent questions based on users’ responses. For example, if a user states their legal problem is related to debt, the subsequent questions may ask for specific information about the debt. An algorithm or computer process could be used to recommend certain information and assistance to the user, based on their answers.277 For example, the algorithm may identify key words such as “husband” or “relationship” and provide links to information about relationship property, marriage, and other assistance related to family law and relationships. Steps to Justice incorporates a similar function using a search bar, which displays sections of information
272 Above n 122, at 1.
273 Above n 122, at 1.
274 Above n 122, at 1.
275 ‘Accessibility menus’ are in use by platforms such as Immediation <www.immediation.com> to accommodate various accessibility needs. See for example UserWay <www.userway.org>.
276 Above n 122, at 4.
277 Above n 122, at 4.
based on the user’s search terms.278 The LSC envisages the algorithm would be continually updated based on feedback from user experiences as to the accuracy of the suggestions it makes.279
In the LSC plan, access portals would provide access to a range of service options: a link to a specific part of the website for targeted information and document assembly forms; connection to a support person such as library staff, court staff, or a legal service; connection to a self-help center or legal aid; connection to a lawyer providing pro bono or compensated services.280 New resources and functionality can be integrated to fill gaps as necessary.281
Collecting data about users’ outcomes is an important part of the LSC vision.282 Assessing how many users are able to resolve their problems (not necessarily in their favour) using the portal is vital to measure the effectiveness of the portal system. The LSC is in the early stages of trialing “Legal Navigator” access portals in Alaska and Hawaii.283
Steps to Justice and Justice Connect’s “Gateway Project” are two active examples of portal systems which could inspire a national portal system in Aotearoa.284 A hybrid model of the two systems would make a strong foundational platform.
Steps to Justice is a Canadian website discussed in Chapter Three.285 The site has been immensely successful in providing the Ontario public with easy-to-understand legal information and practical advice for everyday legal problems.286
Justice Connect is an organisation seeking to connect people with legal need to pro bono lawyers across Victoria, Australia.287 Justice Connect’s “Gateway Project” combines three tools to process
278 Steps to Justice, above n 123.
279 Above n 122, at 5.
280 Above n 122, at 5.
281 Above n 122, at 5.
282 Above n 122, at 5.
283 Legal Navigator, above n 123. 284 Steps to Justice, above n 123. 285 Chapter Three, Part II.
286 Turner and Toy-Cronin, above n 105, at 45.
287 Justice Connect, above n 123.
user inquiries and referrals to pro bono lawyers. The online intake tool, referral tool, and Pro Bono Portal work together in one website to help people make an online application, refer someone else to Justice Connect, and/or be put in contact with a pro bono lawyer in the network.288
The online intake tool comprises a triage process comparable to that described in the LSC plan, using a series of plain language questions to connect people to one of the available pro bono services. These include a Homeless Law Service, a Seniors Law Service, and Self-Representation Services.289 The intake tool compiles the user’s answers to help the user generate an application for pro bono advice and representation. The Pro Bono Portal finds an available pro bono lawyer who is sent the application, and who can respond directly to the inquirer through the Justice Connect website. Justice Connect is valuable in its capacity to streamline applications and referrals for the benefit of the service providers.
The capabilities of Steps to Justice and Justice Connect’s Gateway Project could be combined in a national portal system in Aotearoa with significant capability to improve access to justice for people in the justice gap. The system would allow people to easily access legal information, self- help resources, apply for pro bono assistance, and fill out applications for benefits and other services.
The design of the portal system should reflect the lessons from the examples in Chapter Three. The system must be complementary to existing face-to-face services. To do this, the system should be based on a hybrid model such as that adopted by Justice42.290 “Case managers” or support staff from CLCA and CAB could connect with users via the portal. Additionally, funding for CLCA and CAB must be maintained to prevent the risk of digital exclusion.
The initial scope of the portal system should be limited and complex technology, particularly AI, should be approached with caution. Ambitious goals may lead to failure, as demonstrated by the Rechtwijzer example. The portal system should initially focus on providing legal information, self-
288 Justice Connect, above n 123.
289 Justice Connect, above n 123.
290 Smith, above n 190.
help guides, and coordinating pro bono referrals. Further functionality can be pursued in the future once the system has proven successful in these areas.
Similarly, the portal should prove its reliability through testing prior to being implemented nationally. Such testing could build public trust in the program. A regional pilot program involving CLCA and CAB could be a useful way to carry out testing, because these organisations have the best opportunity to gather feedback from the community. A data trust model could also be pursued.
I propose that a national portal system should comprise two components: (1) a “front-end” website with a user-friendly interface providing access to information and resources, and (2) a “back-end” organisational structure which is modelled on the philosophy of ISD and enables providers to collaborate.
The central element of an organisational structure based on the ISD philosophy should be an agency or committee solely dedicated to the management of the portal system. The main tenets of the ISD philosophy, including a shared purpose, pooled funding, and a central point of reference for the community and the collaborating organisations, would be reflected within this central entity.
The preparatory work which would lead to the implementation of this kind of system in Aotearoa is already underway. Turner and Toy-Cronin have proposed that stakeholders in access to justice come together to determine a collective “vision and mission” for the role of “online legal information and self help” in Aotearoa.291 They suggest that in the process of agreeing upon a shared vision, stakeholders may continue to work collaboratively on national projects, including “a portal website for Aotearoa, incorporating guided pathways, action focused tools, and connections to assistance.” 292 This indicates that, if an integrated organisational structure based
291 Turner and Toy-Cronin, above n 105, at 39.
292 Turner and Toy-Cronin, above n 105, at 36.
on the ISD philosophy were to be created, it would lead the way towards a national portal system of the type I have proposed.
Furthermore, the Wayfinding for Access to Justice consultation document proposes the creation of a “national framework” for access to justice.293 This clearly demonstrates there is a need and desire for organisational integration in access to justice in Aotearoa.
Creating an integrated organisational structure to support the portal system would demand a significant reorganisation of the civil access to justice sector in Aotearoa. The LSC explicitly recognised that its plan for integration “...is ambitious. It must overcome challenges not only of technology, but of leadership, funding, and resistance to change.”294 The portal system requires the support and mutual agreement of a wide range of stakeholders. Funding would need to be sourced for this organisational work as well as for the development of the system’s various technology components. Other components like infrastructure, training, and advertising would also require significant investment. These factors present significant obstacles.295 Nevertheless, I consider the benefits of a national portal system will outweigh these challenges.
As mentioned, I propose the structure be centred around a dedicated entity which administers the portal system and liaises between the Government departments and organisations interacting with it. This entity would be tasked with coordinating between the key groups involved with the portal system including the Ministry of Justice, MBIE, the NZLS, CLCA, and CAB. This approach is in line with the lessons learnt from the Rechtwijzer failure, and the LSC’s recommendation for a “steering committee”.296 The central entity would adopt a core “vision and mission” determined by stakeholders and would be a central point of connection between the various groups involved with access to justice in Aotearoa.
The Wayfinding for Access to Justice draft strategy proposed a ‘national structure’ as one of the goals of the strategic plan, which would be responsible for sharing information, coordinating the
293 Toy-Cronin and others, above n 104, at 13.
294 Above n 122, at 2.
295 Turner and Toy-Cronin, above n 105, at 40.
296 Above n 122, at 10.
work of stakeholders, and giving feedback on progress.297 At this stage in the consultation process, it is unclear what form this ‘national structure’ would take however it may provide a space for a central entity to form. This entity could form part of the “back-end” organisational structure modelled on the philosophy of ISD and would be in a beneficial position to administer access to justice work according to a shared vision. In addition, the group would be well connected to a network of key stakeholders in civil access to justice.298
IV. How will a National Portal System Close the Justice Gap?
A national portal system can produce better outcomes for people in the justice gap. This is because it can mitigate barriers to access discussed in Chapter Two; cost, geographical constraints, cultural and social barriers, service delivery constraints, and information constraints. The national portal system also presents the opportunity to expand into other areas like legal aid, and eventually facilitate cross-disciplinary collaboration.
The national portal system addresses the perpetual lack of resources in the civil access to justice sector because the integration of organisations gives rise to a pooled funding structure.299 By combining funding from across the sector and making joint decisions about its allocation, financial resources will be maximised. Service providers will be supported to keep services free through the integrated model because financial pressure will be shared.
By maximising remote and mobile technologies, and ensuring multiple services are delivered via these technologies, the portal system could minimise the impact of geography on peoples’ access to justice.
No singular system can remove the impact of cultural and social barriers to access, however well- informed and human-centred design can attempt to minimise it. Users living with disabilities and communication difficulties may benefit from functions like audiovisual applications, transcription
297 Toy-Cronin and others, above n 104, at 2.
298 Toy-Cronin and others, above n 104, at 6.
299 Prichard, Purdon and Chaplyn, above n 251, at 9.
functions, and access to sign language or foreign language interpreters which can be incorporated into a portal system.300
Integration facilitates better cultural competency by ensuring services work under a collective “vision and mission.”301 If the organisations providing services to people in the justice gap collectively subscribe to a vision which holds cultural and social competency at the fore, the impact of related factors is likely to be minimised. The portal system would also broaden the pool of service providers available to any one person, thus better enabling users to be matched with support staff who meet their needs.
The portal system would address service delivery constraints by maximising pro bono lawyers and other service providers’ time. The triage or intake process used in a portal system would maximise pro bono lawyers’ availability by reducing administrative burdens involved with pro bono work. Online delivery would widen the pool of available pro bono lawyers. The system can maximise the time of those giving advice at CLCA and CAB by automating data entry and case management processes.302
A national portal system would confront informational barriers by providing access to targeted and digestible legal information based on users’ own search terms.303 Tools which utilise existing platforms such as Google and Reddit may be able to ‘spot’ issues which are legal in nature, addressing the issue that many people with problems are not aware of the availability of legal remedies to resolve them.304 The LSC’s ‘Legal Navigator’ is trialing an AI legal issue spotter of this kind.305 This function could be incorporated into a portal system.
Incorporating services which apply to a range of legal problems into one location removes the need for users to identify the nature of their problem prior to looking for information.306 From a practical
300 Susan Ledray Virtual Services Whitepaper (HarvJL&Tech Occasional Paper Series, February 2013) at 12.
301 Prichard, Purdon and Chaplyn, above n 251, at 9
302 Community service providers spend a lot of time on data entry. See Chris McCormack “Casebook – An Intro to What’s Been Happening and Why” (8 January 2016) We Are Citizens Advice <www.wearecitizensadvice.org.uk>. 303 See for example Steps to Justice, above n 123.
304 See examples in Turner and Toy-Cronin, above n 105, at 41.
305 Legal Navigator, above n 123.
306 New Zealand Law Society, above n 34, at 10, 14.
perspective users would only need one account, requiring one username and password, to access all their case information, updates, and history. The simplicity of having one system is highly beneficial.307
A portal system has the ability to empower users to resolve their own problems with targeted advice and connections to related external resources providing support.308 Long-term, technology could improve legal capability in Aotearoa.309
The system has the capacity to encompass more services in the future, such as legal aid applications and referrals. Legal aid lawyers and clients would benefit from legal aid’s integration into a centralised portal system because it faces similar problems to pro bono services, such as poor service availability and burdensome administration.310
In addition, a central portal system could eventually lead to improved cross-disciplinary collaboration. An example of a website which does this is the Government’s “Smart Start.” Platform.311 Smart Start is a hub for information from different Government agencies based around a key life event – the birth of a child. New and expectant parents can view information and find services for their child in areas such as health, education, finances, birth registration, parenting and maternity support.
In the future, help for legal problems could follow the Smart Start approach to be better integrated with other aspects of wellbeing. Because of the proven interconnectedness of legal problems with other welfare problems, this approach would better reflect people’s realities.312
307 Colmar Brunton, above n 13, at 5, 20.
308 See Turner and Toy-Cronin, above n 105, for discussion about self-help technologies.
309 Toy-Cronin and others, above n 104, at 9-10.
310 See Kantar Public, above n 34.
311 Smart Start <www.smartstart.services.govt.nz>.
312 See Chapter Two, Part III.
V. Limitations of the National Portal System
Despite the capacity of a portal system to enact meaningful change for people in the justice gap, the system is not a complete nor perfect solution. Significant work must also be done in other areas of the civil justice sector to close the justice gap. For example, increased funding is needed for legal aid, CLCA, and CAB. Institutional racism and bias against Māori in the justice system is an ongoing concern which must be addressed.313 Improved education and pro bono reforms would particularly support a national portal system.
Empowering people who may have poor legal capability and understanding of legal process to solve problems themselves will require investment in education as well as accessible legal information.314 Better understanding of the law, fundamental rights, and dispute resolution will help people to prevent and solve problems on their own.
The problems with pro bono work discussed in Chapter Two cannot be resolved by a portal system alone.315 A 2021 amendment to the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 which would have enabled lawyers to provide pro bono work outside of employment failed at second reading, in favour of a different proposal to have all pro bono work conducted through a clearinghouse.316 While an online clearinghouse Te Ara Ture was established in 2021, this change has not yet been made and continues to restrict 58 per cent of the legal profession from participating in a national pro bono program.317 Coupled with other problems of misunderstanding, poor remuneration, and administrative burden faced by pro bono lawyers, reforms are necessary to encourage more pro
313 Wai 3060, above n 54.
314 Toy-Cronin and others, above n 104, at 9-10; New Zealand Law Society, above n 34, at 3.
315 New Zealand Law Society, above n 34, at 46.
316 Justice Committee Report Lawyers and Conveyancers (Employed Lawyers Providing Free Legal Services) Amendment Bill 311-1 (December 2021) at 5.
317 Above n 316, at 6.
bono work to be done.318 An aspirational or even mandatory pro bono allocation would certainly improve the situation, and removal of the legal restrictions on pro bono work remains a priority.319
VI. Conclusion
The national portal proposal presents a number of significant challenges. Investment will be required to set up the system, and people will be asked to change the way they work. Nevertheless, the system has the potential to benefit vulnerable people in the justice gap in equally significant ways. A national portal system based upon the philosophy of ISD presents the most effective and sustainable option for genuine change to civil access to justice, the benefit of which decidedly outweighs the challenges.
The early stages of a national strategic plan, Wayfinding for Civil Justice, are in motion.320 The Working Group leading this mahi is the ideal body to begin the preparatory work for a portal system and an integrated structure. This involves developing a shared “mission and vision” for the civil justice system.321 The proposed ‘national structure’ could incorporate a central entity overseeing the portal system, depending on the form it takes.322 Support from the legal profession, the Ministry of Justice, MBIE, the NZLS, CLCA, and CAB would be fundamental, reflecting their role in supporting access to justice in Aotearoa.323
318 Stewart, Toy-Cronin and Choe, above n 49.
319 Stewart, Toy-Cronin and Choe, above n 49, at 26.
320 Toy-Cronin and others, above n 104.
321 Toy-Cronin and others, above n 104, at 13.
322 Toy-Cronin and others, above n 104, at 7.
323 See Chapter Two, Part IV.
Chapter Five
Conclusion
In this dissertation I have demonstrated the great potential for a national portal system to close the justice gap in Aotearoa. The portal system and its integrated organisational structure can be thought of as an extension of the strategic planning which has already begun in Aotearoa. Multiple stakeholders have petitioned for better collaborative practices and sharing of knowledge, therefore the desire to join forces already exists in the sector.324
The proposal is ambitious, but the consequences of inaction warrant an innovative solution. The cost of investment into this project is justified by the efficiencies a portal system would bring to the delivery of legal information and services. Most importantly, the system’s ability to increase access to essential forms of legal assistance would benefit those in the justice gap.
There are valuable lessons to be learnt from earlier efforts to implement technology solutions in the public sector. Successful examples of portal systems in other jurisdictions may also serve as blueprints for progress in Aotearoa. Building on established models can facilitate rapid development of our own national system, leading to more equitable access to justice. I have shown how legal technology can serve as our key to unlock this “Portal to the Future.”
324Turner and Toy-Cronin, above n 105; New Zealand Bar Association Working Group on Access to Justice, above n 34 at 6.
Bibliography
A Cases
New Zealand Māori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641.
B Legislation
Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care Rules) 2008.
C Treaties and International Agreements
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights GA Res 2200A (1966). Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights GA Res 217A (1948).
D Books and Chapters in Books
Aviva Rotenberg “Challenges and Opportunities: Engaging a Reluctant Profession in Its Own Future” in Siddharth Peter de Souza and Maximilian Spohr (eds) Technology, Innovation and Access to Justice - Dialogues on the Future of Law (Edinburgh University Press, 2021) 250.
Odunoluwa Longe “Future of Law – Increasing Access to Justice Through Technology” in Siddharth Peter de Souza and Maximilian Spohr (eds) Technology, Innovation and Access to Justice - Dialogues on the Future of Law (Edinburgh University Press, 2021) 54.
E Journal Articles
Bryant G. Garth and Mauro Cappelleti “Access to Justice, the Newest Wave in the Worldwide Movement to Make Rights Effective” (1978) 27, BuffLRev 181.
Colin Crawford and Daniel Bonilla Maldonado “Access to Justice: Theory and Practice from a Comparative Perspective” (2020) 27 IndJGlobalLegalStud 1.
Duncan Webb “Why Should Poor People Get Free Lawyers?” (1998) 28 VUWLR 65.
Eleanor De of City, “Janus-Faced Justice? The Role of Legal Technology in the Provision of Access to Justice” (2019) 19 LegInfManag 63.
Fiona Mcleay “The legal profession's beautiful myth: surveying the justifications for the lawyer's obligation to perform pro bono work” (2009) 15 IntJLegProf 249.
James E. Cabral and others, “Using Technology to Enhance Access to Justice” (2012) 26 Harv.J.L.& Tech 243.
Laura Kistemaker “Rechtwijzer and Uitelkaar.nl. - Dutch Experiences with ODR for Divorce” (2021) 59 FamCourtRev 232.
Liz Curran and Mary Anne Noone “Access To Justice: A New Approach Using Human Rights Standards” (2009) 15 IntJLegProf 195.
Mark Elliot “The Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Some Home Truths” (2018) 77 CLJ 5. Martin Krygier “Magna Carta and the Rule of Law Tradition” (2015) 65 Papers on Parliament 1. William Lucy “Access to Justice and the Rule of Law’ (2020) 40 OxfJLegStud 377.
F Parliamentary and Government Materials
Justice Committee Report Lawyers and Conveyancers (Employed Lawyers Providing Free Legal Services) Amendment Bill 311-1 (December 2021).
Report of the Petitions Committee Petition of Citizens Advice Bureau New Zealand: Leave no- one behind—Campaign to address digital exclusion (April 2022).
G Reports
Alexy Buck and others Piecing it Together:Exploring One-Stop Shop Legal Service Delivery in Community Legal Advice Centres (Legal Services Commission, June 2010).
Australia Department of Social Security and Data-Matching Agency Data-Matching Program : Report on Progress (1993) <www.nla.gov.au/nla.obj-1514897054>.
Christine Coumarelos and others Legal Australia-Wide Survey: Legal Need in Australia (Law and Justice Foundation of New South Wales, 2012).
Citizen’s Advice Bureaux Face to Face with Digital Exclusion: A CAB Spotlight Report into the Impacts of Digital Public Services on Inclusion and Wellbeing (2020).
Colmar Brunton Legal Needs Among New Zealanders (Ministry of Justice, 2018).
Ipsos Global Citizens & Data Privacy – An Ipsos-World Economic Forum Project (World Economic Forum, 2019).
Justice Connect Seeking Legal Help Online: Understanding the ‘Missing Majority’ (November 2020).
Kantar Public, Access to Justice Research 2021 (New Zealand Law Society, October 2021).
Kayla Stewart and Bridgette Toy-Cronin The New Zealand Legal Services Mapping Project: Finding Free and Low- Cost Legal Services Pilot Report (University of Otago Legal Issues Centre, 2018).
Kayla Stewart, Bridgette Toy-Cronin and Louisa Choe New Zealand Lawyers, Pro Bono, And Access To Justice (University of Otago Legal Issues Centre, 2020).
Legal Services Corporation Report of The Summit on the Use of Technology to Expand Access to Justice (2013).
New Zealand Bar Association Working Group on Access to Justice Access to Justice: Āhei ki te Ture (New Zealand Bar Association, 2018).
New Zealand Law Society Access to Justice: Stocktake of initiatives (Wellington, 2020). OECD Understanding Effective Access to Justice (Open Society Justice Initiative, Paris, 2016).
T Dignan Legal Need in Northern Ireland: Literature Review (Northern Ireland Legal Services Commission, Belfast, 2004).
Trevor CW Farrow and others Everyday Legal Problems and the Cost of Justice in Canada - Overview Report (Canadian Forum on Civil Justice, Toronto, 2016).
World Justice Project Global Insights on Access to Justice: Findings from the World Justice Project General Population Poll in 101 Countries (World Justice Project, 2019).
World Justice Project Measuring the Justice Gap: A People-Centered Assessment of Unmet Justice Needs Around the World (2019).
H Waitangi Tribunal Materials
Waitangi Tribunal Memorandum-Directions Of The Chairperson Commencing A Kaupapa Inquiry Into Claims Concerning The Justice System (Wai 3060, 2021).
Waitangi Tribunal Te Whanau o Waipareira (Wai 414, 1998).
Waitangi Tribunal The Offender Assessment Policies Report (Wai 1024, 2005). Waitangi Tribunal Tū Mai Te Rangi! (Wai 2540, 2017).
I United Nations Materials
Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development UN Doc A/70/L.1 (18 September 2015).
United Nations Development Program Access to Justice Practice Note (2004).
United Nations Development Program Access to Justice Practice Note (2004). United Nations Development Program Programming for Justice: Access for All - A
Practitioner’s Guide to a Human Rights-Based Approach to Access to Justice (United Nations Development Program, 2005).
J Internet Resources
A2J Author <www.a2jauthor.org>.
ABC News “A Robodebt Royal Commission Has Been Announced. Here’s How We Got to This Point” (26 August 2022) <www.abc.net.au>.
Andrew Probyn “NDIS’ Virtual Assistant Nadia, Voiced by Cate Blanchett, Stalls After Recent Census, Robo-Debt Bungles” (21 September 2017) ABC News < www.abc.net.au>.
Bethany Barrett “What Is Legal Tech, and Why Is It Important?” (21 June 2022) Zegal
Bridgette Toy-Cronin “Legal Aid’s Budget Boost Isn’t Enough” (13 June 2022) Newsroom
Building Disputes Tribunal <https://www.buildingdisputestribunal.co.nz/adjudication/>.
Chris McCormack “Casebook – An Intro to What’s Been Happening and Why” (8 January 2016) We Are Citizens Advice <www.wearecitizensadvice.org.uk>.
Commerce Commission <www.comcom.govt.nz>.
Community Law <www.communitylaw.org.nz>.
Frederico Ast “The Role of Technology to Guarantee Access to Justice” (15 June 2020)
Geoffrey Mead and Barbara Barbosa Neves “Raging Against The Machine: What We Can Learn From The Failure of Robodebt” (25 August 2022) ABC News <www.abc.net.au>.
Health Navigator New Zealand “Integrated Care” <www.healthnavigator.org.nz>.
Ipsos “Opinions About AI Vary Depending On Countries’ Level of Economic Development” (5 January 2022) <www.ipsos.com>.
Johnathan Timm “The Plight of the Overworked Nonprofit Employee” (24 August 2016) The Atlantic <www.theatlantic.com>.
Josh Taylor “People Should Be Held Accountable For AI and Algorithm Errors, Rights Commissioner Says” (16 December 2019) <www.theguardian.com>.
Justice Connect <www.justiceconnect.org.au>. Justice42 <www.justice42.com>.
Law Society of Ontario “Public Resources - Steps to Justice” <www.lso.ca>. Legal Navigator <www.legalnav.org>.
Legal Services Corporation “2022 LSC Technology Initiative Grant Funding Notice” (02 April 2022) Federal Register <www.federalregister.gov>.
Mark Dodd “Artificial Intelligence, Law & Hyperbole” LexisNexis <www.lexisnexis.co.uk>. Ministry of Justice “Wayfinding for Civil Justice – Working Group” <www.justice.govt.nz>. MyLawBC <www.mylawbc.com>.
New Zealand Law Society “Launch of New Pro Bono Tool” (13 May 2021)
Ohio Legal Help <www.ohiolegalhelp.org>.
Peter Whiteford “Robodebt Was a Fiasco With a Cost We Have Yet to Fully Appreciate” (online ed, 16 November 2020) The Conversation <www.theconversation.com>.
Pia Andrews, “How to scale impact through innovation and transformation” The Mandarin 8 October 2019 <www.themandarin.com.au>.
Roger Smith “Classical Lessons from the Rechtwijzer – Conversation with Professor Barendrecht” (22 June 2017) Law, Technology and Access to Justice <www.law-tech-a2j.org>.
Roger Smith “Nadia Falters: teetering technology in the service of access to justice” (6 November 2017) Law, Technology and Access to Justice <www.law-tech-a2j.org>.
Roger Smith “Rechtwijzer – Why Online Supported Dispute Resolution is Hard to Implement” (20 June 2017) Law, Technology and Access to Justice <www.law-tech-a2j.org>.
Roger Smith “Technology and Access to Justice - a Help or a Hindrance?” (20 March 2019) Law, Technology and Access to Justice <www.law-tech-a2j.org>.
Roger Smith “The Rechtwijzer Rises from the Ashes – An Interview with Laura Kistemaker of Justice42” (9 February 2020) Law, Technology and Access to Justice <www.law-tech-a2j.org>.
Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme “About the Royal Commission”
<www.robodebt.royalcommission.gov.au>.
Smart Start <www.smartstart.services.govt.nz>. Solicitors Regulation Authority, “SRA Innovate”
https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/resources/innovate/sra-innovate.
Stephen Easton “Nadia: The Curious Case of the Digital Missing Person” (3 April 2019)
Steps to Justice <www.stepstojustice.ca>.
The Kings Fund “Integrated Care” < https://www.kingsfund.org.uk>.
The Law Society “LASPO Act – What’s Changing” (18 August 2022) <www.lawsociety.org.uk>. UserWay <www.userway.org>.
Victoria Law Foundation “Measuring Legal Capability” <www.victorialawfoundation.org.au>.
Victoria Law Foundation “Public Understanding of Law Survey”
<www.victorialawfoundation.org.au>.
K Other Resources
Alison Gray Integrated Service Delivery and Regional Co-ordination: A Literature Review
(Gray Matter Research Ltd, 2002).
BPE Solicitors, Pinsent Masons and Chris Reed Data trusts: Legal and Governance Considerations (Queen Mary University of London, 2019).
Bridgette Toy-Cronin and others Wayfinding for Civil Justice – Strategy Consultation Document
(2022).
Chris Finlayson, Attorney-General of New Zealand “Access to Justice, Legal Representation and the Rule of Law” (speech to Legal Research Foundation, 24 October 2009).
David Turner and Bridgette Toy-Cronin Online Legal Information and Self Help in Aotearoa: An agenda for action (University of Otago, 2020).
DM Walker The Oxford Companion to Law (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1980).
Frances Joychild “Frances Joychild QC on the fading star of the Rule of Law” Evening Report
(24 March 2015).
Francesco Francioni Access To Justice As A Human Right (Oxford University Press, New York, 2007).
Helen Winkelmann "Access to Justice - Who needs lawyers?" [2014] OtaLawRw 2; (2014) 13 Otago LR 229.
Jena McGill and others Emerging Technological Solutions to Access to Justice Problems: Opportunities and Risks of Mobile and Web-based Apps (University of Ottawa, 13 October 2016).
Katherine Alteneder and others The Role of Technology in the Access Solution (National Centre for State Courts, Summit on the Future of Self-Represented Litigation, March 2005).
Law Society of England and Wales Technology, Access to Justice and the Rule of Law - Is technology the key to unlocking access to justice innovation? (2019).
Legal Review Secretariat The Regulation of Lawyers and Legal Services in Aotearoa New Zealand – Independent Review Discussion Document (2022).
Mark Boddington Legal Informatics and Access to Justice: Innovation in Education and the Community Sector (New Zealand Winston Churchill Memorial Trust, 2017).
Michael Kirby, Justice of the High Court of Australia, “Law Firms And Justice In Australia” (speech at Australian Law Awards, Sydney, 7 March 2002).
Paul Carpinter Summary – History Of The Welfare State In New Zealand (2012).
Paul Prichard, Susan Purdon and Jennifer Chaplyn Moving Forward Together: A Guide To Support The Integration Of Service Delivery For Children And Families (Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, The Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne, Tasmanian Early Years Foundation, 2010).
Polly Brendon PLP Research Briefing Paper - The Civil Legal Advice Telephone Gateway
(Public Law Project, 2018).
Richard Zorza Preliminary Thoughts on Blue Sky Technology Driven Access and Decision Systems (HarvJL&Tech Occasional Paper Series, 2013).
Roger Smith and Alan Paterson Face to Face Legal Services and Their Alternatives: Global Lessons from the Digital Revolution (2014).
Susan Ledray Virtual Services Whitepaper (HarvJL&Tech Occasional Paper Series, February 2013).
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/UOtaLawTD/2022/32.html