Providing access to justice for all citizens – how is this challenge best met in an era of limited public funding?

The challenge of providing affordable access to justice and to the law is often couched in terms of access for those who are disadvantaged or excluded. Sadly, it is a much greater problem than that. Many ordinary citizens of reasonable means believe legal advice or support is beyond their means. It almost impossible for many citizens to find out what the law actually is. Even judges on occasion have difficulty accessing a reliable version of up-to-date statute law. Most people have difficulty in accessing case law, there being only one free at the online resource for this. Visit BAILII.

Whilst we regard ourselves as a society which values the rule of law, we accept a level of public legal education which we might criticize if we found it elsewhere. It is easy to say that it is the responsibility of the state alone to provide public legal education and that responsibility for access to justice also falls exclusively to the state.

Read [here] an article which challenges that view and which argues that, whilst the state has a significant role to play, it is ultimately society as a whole which determines the level of access to justice that it offers to its citizens. This should result in fresh thinking on the part of civil society, the legal profession, the voluntary sector and public authorities which goes far beyond calls for restoration of government funding.

One area in which fresh thinking is readily observable (but perhaps not readily understood) is the use of technology in the delivery of legal services. Large law firms have put technological advance at the heart of development for several decades but the broader question of how citizens and the courts might benefit from technology is still relatively new.

Most public attention is drawn to the ways in which online courts might simplify criminal justice and dispute resolution. There are, however, many other major ways in which technology can deliver information, guided pathways for problem-solving, tools for self-help, apps which address particular needs, remote delivery of advice and many other new methods of providing legal services and support.

It is important that these advances are well known and openly available to all. The Legal Education Foundation seeks to track developments around the world in a readily accessible way. The exchange of ideas and developments is vital if we are to produce new, affordable ways of providing legal support and access to justice. Read [here] an article which proposes that a Legal Tech City should be established to foster this type of collaborative development for the public good.

It is often pointed out that the legal profession itself is not sufficiently accessible as a career and is not sufficiently diverse in its make-up. Both of these failings create an obstacle in themselves to access to justice and the law.

Many of the programmes of activities designed to improve social mobility in the law relate to commercial law practices which are well resourced but which are remote from the needs and lives of citizens. These initiatives have not produced an improvement in social mobility as it relates to the legal profession. Read [here] an article which argues that the focus should at least be shared with areas of the law which relate to communities and ordinary citizens.

It advocates investment in a new generation of social welfare lawyers whose working lives will show the connection between between law and society and who will provide visible role models for a career in areas of law which should be more highly prized and regarded.

The LEF Justice First Fellowship scheme seeks to put these ideas into practice. I declare a close interest here as one of the founders of the scheme.

I referred earlier to the need fresh thinking by the legal profession itself on the affordability of legal services. This is a complex area due to the historic role played by the state in funding legal aid. It is often argued that this support should simply be reinstated. Many commentators see a danger in the expansion of pro bono activities by lawyers because this might allow this state to escape its responsibility to fund that support. I do not think that this argument is now valid. Pro bono activities could expand tenfold and we would still have a challenge in resourcing affordable legal support for all citizens.

Read [here] an article which argues that a range of new approaches must be developed to identify how legal support saves money and to identify how those savings might justify new funding approaches.  We will need new ideas relating to legal expenses insurance, social impact bonds, pro bono costs orders, remote provision of advice, medico-legal partnerships, arrangements whereby savings are turned into investment and many other new approaches. The state should be called upon to play its part in this, particularly where savings should be used for investment, but it is no longer the case that simple state funding is an achievable or a desirable central plank for sustainable access to justice and the law.