header-logo header-logo

08 October 2021
Issue: 7951 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Technological innovation in the pursuit of access to justice

In the final article in his four-part series on access to justice and the use of technology, solicitor and author Roger Smith looks at the state of not-for-profit legal tech at home and abroad. For example, not-for-profits play a major role in US civil and criminal services, while Canada and Australia have a mix of private and not-for-profit

They are all strapped for cash with no retained profits to invest in technology, although they have been forced to work online during the Covid pandemic. Regardless, there has been some strategic development of technology and some interesting projects, yielding strong results.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll