Law Society: Call for government action
The Law Society has called for the creation of a “one-stop shop” platform, backed by artificial intelligence (AI), to act as a single point of entry to the civil justice system, in the final report of its 21st Century Justice project.
A legal version of NHS 111, it would help people understand their legal issue and signpost them to the help they need.
The society said work by Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), Access to Justice Foundation and Bangor University to create a similar tool for employment law, backed by generative AI, had shown the “significant potential” of AI for addressing unmet legal need.
The interim report of the 21st Century Justice project, published in May 2024, set out plans for a “solutions explorer” to act as a single online entry point for legal disputes, whether or not they end up in court.
The final report, published today, said that since then the Bangor University project had created an employment law tool which used generative AI to assess a person’s legal needs and then signpost them to online dispute resolution (ODR) options ranked by suitability.
“To assess legal accuracy, we invited employment law experts to test the tool. The findings were encouraging, with a high degree of accuracy in assessing the potential legal issues at play in the scenarios provided by the employment law specialists.
“With some input from the Law Society, SRA, and Access to Justice Foundation, this tool was built in less than six months by a small team of academics at Bangor, with most of the work being carried out by a single PhD student.
“Despite these constraints, the user testing results indicate the significant potential that AI has for addressing unmet legal need at a low cost.”
The society noted too that the Civil Justice Council’s Futures Group called recently for the creation of a “central hub” to develop a strategy for digital inclusion, citing the example of the Prisoner Content Hub, which prisoners used to access data and services to support their rehabilitation.
A similar approach “could be replicated in the digital justice system with the creation of a ‘one-stop shop’ platform” to help people find the best way to resolve their disputes.
The society recommended that the Ministry of Justice back a government-funded solutions explorer as a means to “ensure consumer protection, enforce behaviour standards and collect, analyse and publish key data”.
The society went on: “In addition to identifying options for non-court dispute resolution, a solutions explorer could also provide information to people about litigation funding and legal aid, as well as signposting them to local solicitors or law centre and advice clinics.”
The report said the government should also consider creating an online dispute resolution ombudsman to oversee ODR providers signed up the solutions explorer, as well as reform of the wider ombudsman landscape to “reduce overlap and make it easier for users to navigate”.
This could take the form of “a single ombudsman for every major area of public life, or where there is high risk of consumer detriment and a lack of alternative redress”.
The report recognised that the use of AI in legal services “could be transformative” – indeed the government “should prioritise addressing people’s needs through technology enabled justice”.
But guardrails were required to ensure the technology was deployed “safely and ethically”.
It proposed that the government facilitate “a dynamic and open lawtech and justice technology market, safeguarded by adaptable, principle-based regulation and firm legislation”.
It should also play a “key role” in facilitating collaborative opportunities and fora for solicitors, individuals and technology vendors “to help address different stakeholder expectations, identify knowledge and opportunity gaps and support access to justice”.
Legal regulators, meanwhile, had to assess the supply and value chain of AI tools, “ensuring that at each stage, vendors and practitioners understand consumer needs and impacts on them and adhere to the regulatory frameworks in place”.
Finally, the government should “regularly uprate civil legal aid fees with inflation and establish an independent legal aid fees review body to periodically review fees to ensure they achieve and maintain sustainability”.
Richard Atkinson, president of the Law Society, commented: “The justice system is a public service, just like health and education – 21st century justice should work for everyone, regardless of their background or means.”
Leave a Comment