Digital technologies can provide innovative ways for people to seek and obtain redress through formal and informal justice institutions. In addition, digitalization can promote access to justice by creating more agile and accessible processes. Poverty, discomfort, language barriers and poor access to technology are some of the problems that prevent people from seeking justice, according to the speakers at the interactive session of the forum on access to justice for minorities. Fear and lack of understanding of the judicial process also have a significant impact on the effectiveness of the judicial system, said Dio Ashar Wicaksana, co-founder and executive director of the Indonesian Judicial Research Society.
The increasing reliance on technology in legal proceedings can create problems for litigants who don't own computers or have limited access to the Internet. Ideally, courts should be sensitive to the needs of a community and find ways to make their digital services available to people with limited access to computers or limited knowledge of technology. Unregulated legal AI locks law firms in a mutually reinforcing cycle that only enriches wealthy firms and widens revenue gaps between firms. Larger law firms are often better equipped to adopt emerging legal technologies; advanced AI is expensive to obtain and adopt and is therefore only available to wealthy firms that have the necessary capital and funding capacity to develop it.
Not only do these technologies automate time-consuming tasks, but they also aid in creative and analytical tasks. As larger law firms adopt emerging legal AI and embark on a long-term trial and error process, they maximize the benefits that come from AI, all with a safety net. Smaller law firms don't have this privilege and will be vulnerable when they adopt cheap, fully developed AI in the future. By using higher-quality artificial intelligence, larger law firms can offer more services to elite individuals, but probably not to those harmed by the judicial divide.
By automating administrative tasks, domestic companies can also expand in size and geography. On the contrary, smaller companies are left in less efficient and more self-sufficient positions because they don't have the necessary organizational resources to take advantage of emerging legal AI. In this chapter, we seek to shed light on how virtual procedures are developed for these low-income individuals who are not represented on a daily basis. It's important to do it.
To date, much of the conversation has praised Zoom's court proceedings as the future of civil justice, focusing this praise on idealized forms of online proceedings and their conveniences, without questioning the impact of the precariousness faced by low-income people or persistent digital divides. Digital tools can improve the efficiency, transparency and access to justice of the judicial sector. When used strategically, e-justice can promote the rule of law and protect human rights, while improving the effectiveness of justice systems and institutions. But technology can also be used in ways that exacerbate injustices, negatively affect rights and freedoms, encourages violence and encourages delinquency.
Identifying and understanding both the opportunities and risks of technology is critical to fully fulfilling its role in promoting justice, human rights and the rule of law. Professor Simshaw also notes that “some prepaid Internet service plans do not provide the broadband coverage needed to support emerging legal technology applications. These shared meanings invariably shape the way in which unrepresented people are perceived and the interactions that develop between unrepresented people and others within the civil justice system. Recognize the need for digitization, especially for managing court files, documents, filing lawsuits and paying fees, is essential for moving forward.
As legal technology gains momentum, a “technology is better than nothing” approach won't suffice. Unlike lawyers, the shift from in-person hearings to Zoom hearings imposes significant situational barriers and technological restrictions on low-income individuals. First, high-quality AI can be expensive and therefore only available to larger law firms, presenting an asymmetry of power between law firms and individuals. In addition, attorneys who use virtual hearings face few technological limitations compared to low-income, unrepresented individuals who attend hearings via Zoom.
The digitalization of justice has demonstrated significant potential to improve efficiency, transparency and inclusion in judicial processes. Patricia Barnes, a lawyer and former judge, warns that the AI used in law firms aggravates “inequality” in discrimination lawsuits. The global shift to digital platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the fundamental role of technology in maintaining the continuity of judicial processes, and highlighted the shift from traditional face-to-face interactions to more inclusive digital interactions that could democratize access to justice. For example, lawyers can participate in fully virtual interactions, in which they can perform hyperpersonalization and, in addition, they can zoom from independent law offices with reliable high-speed Internet connections.
We examine how these new technologies reconfigure the characteristics, possibilities and barriers present in the civil justice system, and the impact of these new technologies on the psychology of judges, lawyers and unrepresented people, as well as the impact of these new technologies on the meaning of the judicial function and on the unrepresented status of a person. Due to the rising cost of lawyers and the increasing complexity of the law, more people are effectively excluded from justice every year. The digital transformation of justice systems is not only a technological improvement, but it represents a profound socio-legal change in modern legal frameworks.