As justice systems increasingly move online, the challenge is no longer whether technology can be used, but how digital justice is designed, governed, and experienced. Drawing on developments in the Online Procedure Rules, this insight reflects on inclusion, interoperability, and the future of user-centred justice.
Online dispute resolution moves forward: Draft rules released for consultation
As justice systems increasingly adopt digital processes, online dispute resolution (ODR) is becoming a central feature of civil, family, and tribunal justice. This shift is not simply about introducing new technology into existing systems. It raises deeper questions about how justice is designed, governed, and experienced — particularly by people navigating legal problems without professional representation.
The development of The Online Procedure (Core Rules and Pilot Schemes) Rules 2026 – GOV.UK for England and Wales offers a useful lens through which to examine these questions. The rules establish a procedural framework for online court and tribunal proceedings delivered by HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS), with the stated aim of simplifying processes and improving accessibility for all users, including litigants in person.
Drawing on work with the Online Procedure Rule Committee, these rules illustrate how digital justice reform is beginning to move beyond efficiency-driven narratives and toward a more user-centred approach.
Inclusion as a procedural principle
One of the most significant aspects of the Online Procedure Rules is the explicit requirement that digital justice services must be designed and maintained so as to be usable by all. This framing matters. It treats usability and accessibility not as optional design features, but as core procedural principles.
For individuals engaging with justice systems without lawyers, often using shared devices, limited data, or unstable connectivity, this distinction is critical. Digital justice that works well for confident, digitally literate users can still exclude large sections of the population if inclusion is not embedded from the outset. Making usability a legal requirement signals an important shift toward fairness, trust, and legitimacy in digital justice design. These principles have led to the development of the Inclusion framework and pre-action model for the digital justice system: public engagement document reflecting a user-centred justice system.
Interoperability and fragmented justice pathways
A second foundational issue highlighted by the rules is the problem of fragmentation. Justice systems are typically made up of multiple, disconnected services: legal information platforms, advice providers, pre-action tools, and court processes that do not easily communicate with one another.
Efforts to align these systems through shared data standards and interoperable design have the potential to reduce one of the most persistent burdens faced by users: the need to repeatedly retell their story, resubmit documents, and navigate complex institutional boundaries. A more connected digital justice ecosystem can help shift this burden away from individuals and toward the system itself.
This challenge — fragmented pathways that place cognitive and administrative strain on users — is central to the work of justice innovation initiatives such as Smart Justice, which focus on designing technology around real user journeys rather than institutional silos.
AI, user behaviour, and procedural safeguards
At the same time, user behaviour is evolving rapidly. Generative AI tools are increasingly being used by individuals to understand legal processes, draft documents, and prepare claims. This development is reshaping how people engage with justice systems, often outside formal institutional channels.
While broader debates continue about the appropriate role of AI in legal decision-making, its growing presence in the pre-action and litigation lifecycle underscores the importance of procedural clarity, transparency, and safeguards. Digital justice frameworks must evolve in step with how people actually use technology, rather than assuming idealised or uniform patterns of engagement.
Why this matters for digital justice
Taken together, the Online Procedure Rules highlight a broader shift in thinking about digital justice: from technology as a tool for efficiency to technology as a component of justice design. Inclusion, interoperability, and responsiveness to user behaviour are no longer peripheral concerns; they are central to the legitimacy of online justice systems.
For policymakers, practitioners, technologists, and researchers, these developments invite continued reflection on how digital justice can be designed to reduce — rather than reproduce — existing inequalities in access to justice. The challenge is not simply to digitise procedures, but to ensure that digital justice genuinely works for the people it is intended to serve.
Smart Justice – Key takeaways
- Inclusion must be built into justice systems, not added later.
Digital justice only works if it is usable by people with different levels of access, confidence, literacy, and support. - Fragmented pathways undermine access to justice.
Interoperable, user-centred systems can reduce the burden placed on individuals who are currently forced to navigate disconnected advice, pre-action, and court processes. - Justice technology must respond to real user behaviour.
As people increasingly rely on digital tools — including AI — justice systems must evolve to support fairness, transparency, and trust in how justice is experienced in practice.
These principles inform how Smart Justice designs, tests, and scales justice technology — ensuring innovation is shaped by lived experience and focused on improving access to justice in practice.