UK Judge Calls For An Online Court Without Lawyers To Cut Costs

mi writes from a report via The Times: A senior judge has called for the establishment of an online court (Warning: source may be paywalled) that does not have lawyers and can deal with claims of up to 25,000 British Pound (around $32,850). The proposal is the centerpiece of a package of reforms to the civil justice system, drawn up by Lord Justice Briggs, a Court of Appeal judge. Just how exactly will this court ensure no one is, in fact, a trained professional on the internet, where no one knows who you really are, is not explained. We discussed the idea last year. Apparently, it is still alive. The judge's report says this computer court would provide "effective access to justice without having to incur the disproportionate cost of using lawyers." The Law Gazette reported earlier in June that Briggs has mused about a three-stage process -- triage, conciliation and final judgement -- in which there might be some lawyer involvement.

Comments

Re:A thoroughly ridiculous concept

[Alain Williams]

Bull crap. 60% of all family court cases here (divorce, separation, child custody) already have 1 party representing themselves.

Mother is usually the represented one after having made a phony allegation of domestic violence which allows her to: grab the kids, get 2 years legal aid (paid by public purse), oust dad from the house. No: not always the case, but I have seen this pattern many times.

Family law seems to attract lawyers who are primarily interested in prolonging the case to grab more money in fees.

Re:So the small claims court then?

[AmiMoJo]

I'd prefer to go to Small Claims Court rather than do it online. If I take some company there then they have to come to my local court, no matter how far away they are. It makes it much easier to win because chances are they will, at most, send a local lawyer who barely understands the case or the issue, if they bother to turn up at all.

Doing it online makes it easier for them to mount a defence.