header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
31 October 2025 / Professor Sue Prince
Issue: 8137 / Categories: Features , Profession , Technology , Rule of law , Legal services , Legal aid focus , Equality
printer mail-detail

Digital justice in an interoperable world

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
234228
To improve access to justice, we need innovative platforms & collaborative working, writes Sue Prince
  • Digital technology has the potential to equalise access to justice.
  • The quality and reliability of information are key, and various frameworks are being considered to improve public confidence in digital tools.

The access to justice crisis is well documented. Many people cannot afford legal services and do not know where to go for help; they find the legal system complex and confusing. Backlogs, cuts to services, and a cost-of-living crisis affecting employment, housing and debt have led to a huge gap in servicing legal need and an inability to meet demand.

Innovative approaches using digital technology now have the potential to begin to equalise access to information and advice. Websites such as Divorce Online, Access Social Care, Advice Now, and platforms such as the Official Injury Portal, are increasingly offering help and support for people with legal issues.

Optimistically, it could be envisaged that in the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
NLJ this week: Volunteers, promotions & perilous appeals
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
NLJ this week: When saying no to mediation pays
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll