← LSE: Public lectures and events
LSE: Public lectures and events
Recovery or Radical Transformation: the effect of COVID-19 on justice systems
00:57:53
Loading summary
Transcript19 lines
- [00:00]
A
Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to this afternoon's online event which is entitled Recovery or Radical the effect of COVID 19 on justice systems. I'm delighted to welcome you all to this event which is hosted by the LSE European Institute and by the LSE Department of Law. My name is Professor Andrew Murray and I'm a Professor of Law with particular reference to New Media and Technology Law. And I'm the deputy head of LSE's Department of Law. I'm delighted this afternoon to be chairing this event and to welcome our distinguished speaker, Sir Jeffrey Voss. Sir Geoffrey began his appointment as Master of the Rolls and Head of civil justice in January 2021. Previous to this, Sir Jeffrey had served as Chancellor of the High Court of England and Wales from October 2016 to January 2021, and prior to this was President of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary and of course, a Lord justice of Appeal. Now, just before I hand over to Sir Jeffrey to begin his talk, I have just a couple of housekeeping announcements. For those of you who use Twitter, can I ask you to put a hashtag on any tweets about this afternoon's event? And the hashtag is LSECOVID19. In addition, there will, of course, as is normal with these LSE public events, be a chance for you to put your questions to our speaker later on in the event. When we come to the Q and A portion, please use the Q and A feature at the bottom of your screen. So if you look at the bottom of your screen, there should pop up a little box that says Q and A. If you can put your question in there, please, I will then submit them to our speaker. So with housekeeping done and introductions done, I am now delighted to introduce and to hand over to Sir Jeffrey to begin his presentation this afternoon. Sir Jeffrey. Sir Geoffrey. You're still on mute. I don't know.
- [02:10]
B
You seem to be right. That would seem to be better. Very many apologies for that. That's a five pound fine payable to charity. Well, thank you very much, Andrew, for the introduction. I'm very grateful to the LSE's European Institute and Department of Law for inviting me to deliver this talk. If I were speaking from the Royal Courts of Justice. And even without Covid, it wouldn't have taken me long to walk the 300 meters from there to the LSE to do it. But the time taken for that short walk has been cut by the wonders of Zoom. I'm joking about that, but the point has some relevance to what I'm intending to talk about this afternoon. And in fact I'm not at the Royal Courts of Justice and nor, you may think, from looking at my backdrop, am I in my own front room. I'm actually giving this talk from the Guildhall in the City of London, which I'm very grateful for being allowed to do because I've been here all day on an away day, and I don't think I've ever given a talk with such a grand backdrop ever before, and it's most unlikely that I shall ever do so ever again. Now, I've been asked to address the effect of COVID 19 on justice systems by reference to the question is it recovery or radical transformation? It will be an open secret to those listening that I'm keen that our civil justice system should consider radical technological reforms. And there are really two main strands to my approach. First, resolving the disputes of the future rather than those of the past, and secondly, reform of the process that we use to achieve resolution. I have tried to be in the vanguard of those who think that when considering how to reform our justice systems, whether here or in other jurisdictions, we should be considering carefully the kinds of cases that judges, mediators and arbitrators will actually be required to determine in a new technological era. And that means realizing how technology will change the lives of individuals, of consumers and businesses, and not waiting for those changes fully to manifest themselves before thinking about the effects they will have on the justice process. Secondly, and equally importantly, I do not think we should confuse utilizing quite straightforward modern technology such as video conferencing, E filing or electronic documentation with substantively reforming the methods by which we deliver justice. Video hearings just enable us to undergo the same court process remotely rather than face to face. E filing simply avoids the journey to the courthouse to issue proceedings, and electronic documentation happily saves thousands of trees from destruction just in order that vast paper bundles can be referred to in a physical courtroom. But none of these things changes the process itself. I'm concerned to consider this afternoon how that process might be changed whilst still ensuring fairness and justice for those using the justice system. And as regards online justice, I'm sure that we will only be able to offer access to justice for all fit for the 21st century. If we move our civil and in fact our family and tribunals justice systems online, we may leave final resolution of at least some cases started online to be undertaken by judges, either face to face or by remote methods as appropriate. But broadly, we need to go online. I will return to each of these fundamentals in a moment, but let me deal With a little bit of background, the issues I've already mentioned do not only affect the justice system in England and Wales, they affect every justice system that aspires to learn the lessons of the COVID pandemic and wants to make sensible preparations for the way life will be lived and business will be undertaken in the decades to come. It's already reasonably clear what technological innovations will most affect life and business. First, the ubiquitous use of the Internet and of smart devices. Secondly, huge data storage, recording every aspect of our lives and our businesses. Thirdly, instantaneous high quality communication around the globe. Fourth, electronic transferable documentation and fifth, on chain smart contracts, recording every kind of consumer and business transaction immutably and irrebuttably. Finally, central bank, wholesale and retail digital currencies or crypto assets, allowing 24,7 financial and market activity nationally and internationally. So what then has really happened as a result of COVID As I've already indicated, the truthful answer to that question is not all that much. In England and Wales, the civil courts were quick to adopt remote working for most types of case, allowing proceedings to continue to be determined whilst lockdown and social distancing measures were in place. The business and property courts in particular hardly missed a beat. They continued hearing interlocutory matters and final trials from a very early stage, using originally Skype for business and then teams. In other countries, I think it's fair to say that judges were slightly slower to react. Our judiciary has held numerous bilateral engagements with other countries judges on zoom. We've been slightly surprised by the elemental technology that they are often using and by the obstacles placed in the way of doing things without face to face contact. For example, in one European country, the commercial judges gathered around a single screen in an 18th century library. In another court, in another country, court hearings had had to be postponed because of the legal requirement to change the air in any public space every 20 minutes. And in the USA the judges we spoke to were actually reluctant to consider remote hearings for any case which evidence was required and so on and so on around the world. In many countries I expect that things will return imperceptibly to a pre Covid normal after Covid restrictions have relaxed. So what is the position here? Here I think, and I hope that judges will be more receptive to learning lessons from what we have had by force of circumstances to do. I can't envisage returning to normal, I can't envisage at least returning completely to normal and I can't envisage returning to face to face hearings. For example for case management appointments or even short hearings on other issues. Remote hearings are popular with lawyers as they save time and traveling costs. They are effective for lawyers as well, as it's hardly more difficult for a judge to communicate with a lawyer on a video call than it is in person with litigants in person. That's not universally true and in many types of case, face to face contact between judge litigant is still likely to be important. And judges in this country are being gradually prized away from their enthusiasm for paper. I for one no longer use the stuff. Electronic documents are far more convenient and much lighter to take home on the tube. But as I've said, already more important. I expect that judges in England and Wales will be more receptive to more radical departures as a result of their Covid experience. In one sense, Covid came at an inconvenient time because it struck when the hmcts, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Service Reform Program, was in full swing. But it had yet to be completed so far as judges were concerned. At the time of the first lockdown, the new online civil money claims, now with over 200,000 cases under its belt, was producing unresolved cases in a digital form to only 17 county courts at that time. Therefore, few judges at the coalface were seeing the effects of the change. Now, I'm pleased to say cases from OCMC online civil money claims will shortly be dealt with in all county courts across the country. And the new damages claims online was launched on 28 May this year. In the next two years, online justice in England and Wales will become a reality for most common types of claim, whether they're damages claims, money claims, possession claims, employment tribunal claims, or public and private family claims. There are online justice systems in other countries too, such as the now famous Civil Resolution Tribunal in British Columbia in Canada, and there are online justice systems in China and Kazakhstan. But none of the mainstream common law jurisdictions have an established system for court cases being brought online across the board. And there's another aspect to this which I regard as being of central importance, and that's about alternative dispute resolution, which I said in a recent speech should really be renamed as dispute resolution since it's not alternative at all. Online systems allow for continuous mediated interventions aimed at every stage at resolving the dispute, and the online space allows also for pre action portals with the same objective. And these pre action portals are now very much a reality. In England and Wales we have the personal injury portal dealing with some 600,000 cases a year. The new whiplash portal which may itself deal with several hundred thousand cases, and the forthcoming SME portal, all of which are prime examples. I have recently suggested that the pre action space might become even more important and might be accredited by an online rules committee so that users would have confidence in online pre action portals as a means of speedy and cost effective dispute resolution. Well, with that rather lengthy exposition of the background, let me come back to my two suggested innovations resolving the disputes of the future rather than those of the past, and reform of the processes that we use to achieve resolution in the context of online justice. So what kind of case will need resolution in the future? And I think that some insightful thinking is necessary here. There is a wide range of disputes from the 60 million disputes resolved every year on ebay at one end to the disputes worth billions of dollars resolved in the financial list of the business and property courts in the roles building at the other extreme. Historically we have always allowed our thinking to concentrate on the very small number of cases at that high end extreme, but that is really allowing the tail to wag the dog. It is necessary in thinking about the future to consider the whole picture. Many, if not most disputes of the future will originate on the Internet because of some purchase or transaction concluded online. The consumer of 2021 does their banking online, receives their utilities and telecoms bills online, and buys their groceries and other products online. SMEs increasingly transact exclusively online. Some of the older ones amongst us may have experienced how hard it is to find an address or a telephone number for a government office, energy company or local council. But that's only the start. The real revolution will come when consumers and SMEs alike use entirely electronic transferable documentation and on chain, retail and wholesale digital currencies. Disputes are less likely in that space to be about what was agreed, because that will all be irreversibly recorded in the electronic record. It was for this reason that the UK Jurisdiction Task Force, which I chair, introduced its streamlined digital dispute resolution rules launched in April 2021. The objective is to allow experts or arbitrators to resolve on chain disputes in days rather than months or years, and to implement decisions directly on chain using a private key, allowing also for optional anonymity of the parties. Now of course there will still be a role for debt collection cases even in the brave new world that I'm expecting, but I would expect those kinds of cases to be resolved far more quickly online with payment plans being agreed or in extremist enforcement. Online payment plans are online now in OCMC and already hmcts plan to bring enforcement online. So once one understands exactly what kinds of dispute will arise in a tech enabled business and consumer world, it's easier to work out how to reform. But the dispute resolution mechanisms that will be appropriate. And that's where I'm going now. Reform then of the dispute resolution process itself. Now, I've already explained why remote hearings and the other Covid measures change the method but not the system. That does not mean that the lessons we've learned are not valuable. They are. But there is more to be done. The online funnel, as I've described it for all civil family and tribunal disputes is really now in the course of creation. In just a few years, almost all cases will be capable of being started and progressed online. And that will be an extraordinary achievement. But ultimately more will be needed to ensure that the online space does not simply replicate what was previously done on paper or by an analog method. For example, some of the online systems will start by asking the user to upload a statement of their claim or written evidence. It will be far better or when they have developed so that we have built decision trees that take the user directly towards the identification of the issue or issues that really divide the parties. In a road traffic case, the real question is often very simple. Was the car going too fast in a dispute between SMEs or a consumer and an SME a B2C dispute? It might be were the widgets of the agreed quality. At the moment, the drafting of lengthy claim forms, pleadings, experts reports and witness statements provides a lengthy and costly route to the identification of the one or two issues that are really at the heart of the problem. Now, many have advocated cutting the white book in half. That might be an unscientific method. I am in favor, as I've said, of a new online rules committee to provide the governance for the online dispute resolution space. It will be necessary to be sufficiently flexible to allow the programs to develop imaginatively to use artificial intelligence wisely, whilst retaining the participants inalienable rights to a fair and just process in which consumers and businesses alike have absolute confidence. Now, the difficult part of all this is not actually programming first class online dispute resolution pre action portals. Many of those exist and they can and will be connected by appropriate APIs to online claims systems, all using a single data set. The difficult part is deciding how the judges operating throughout and at the end of the online process should ultimately resolve the legal and factual issues that will still arise in some cases. At the moment, if a case is not resolved by the dispute resolution mechanisms integrated within the online process. The case will simply be referred to an interlocutory or final hearing, whether it be remote or face to face. My sense is that there must be a process that does not so often involve getting lawyers, parties, experts and witnesses all in one place at one time, sometimes for days on end. Undoubtedly, remote hearings are a useful tool, but I think we need also to work out what kinds of issues can actually be resolved by judges in an asynchronous online process. There's much more work to be done, but once we've created the funnel made of pre action portals and online claims, I have the feeling that the answers to these questions will seem far more straightforward. So let me come in conclusion to my answer to the essay question I was set. It'll be now clear that my answer is that the effect of COVID 19 on justice systems is both recovery and radical transformation. The latter was on its way before COVID intervened. But the terrible pandemic has to some extent at least provided a springboard for the reforms that were already long overdue. You may already have detected that I'm actually really very excited about the current developments and the ones that are already being planned. I understand that that technology will not solve all our problems. I understand that there will still be those who are digitally disadvantaged and those who will require assistance to utilize the online space. I understand that there will always be some disputes that will only ever be capable of resolution by bringing the parties face to face for a judge to decide who is telling the truth. And I completely understand the need for the state to provide an independent judicial dispute resolution process available quickly and at proportionate cost to all. That is really the access to justice prize that will result from the developments that I've described. My sense about this, however, is that the vast bulk of civil disputes, and possibly the vast bulk also of employment, tribunal and private family disputes, are amenable to a streamlined online dispute resolution process. The speed of that process, even if there is still face to face hearings in the most difficult cases, will allow the parties to spend less time and emotional energy agonizing over their disputes, more time concentrating on their economic and personal lives. Thank you.
- [25:27]
A
Thank you very much, Sir Jeffrey. So now we move on to the later stages of this afternoon's event. So the first thing I'm going to say from the chair is that I'm seeing them starting to come in now. We're going to have some really good Q and A. The guidance is in the chat, if you can follow that. It's helpful, which is basically going to ask a Q and A question if you can see who you are and where you're from. That just gets an idea of kind of the type of people are asking questions and their background. But I mean, if you've sent in questions already without doing that, don't worry, I'll still put the questions to Sir Jeffrey when we get there. But just before we get to the sort of interactive Q and A session where your questions will be put to Sir Jeffrey. One of the absolutely fantastic things about the LSE public lecture series is not only the sort of ability to hear from great and knowledgeable speakers and for our guests to interact with them. It's the ability of kind of chairs to abuse the position, to kind of ask some questions of their own and to have a little bit of a chat as well. So I'm in the great tradition of abusing the chair. I'm going to just start by asking one or two questions that really, I think have are coming from exactly what Sir Jeffrey was talking about. And then I do promise I will make sure your questions get asked as well. You're not going to be forgotten about. So, I mean, the first thing I've got to say is, having heard you speak this afternoon, the first thing is simply, thank you, Sir Jeffrey. That was really insightful and thought provoking and a fantastic introduction to the discussion. And I was very struck by something you said early on and which thematically you returned to throughout your talk, and this is that in reforming civil justice, we must ensure, as you said, we are resolving the disputes of the future rather than those of the past, which I think is really refreshing to hear from a senior judge because often law courts and the legal processes seem to be very slow to respond and change. So this is fantastic to hear. And it seemed to me that as part of this process of modernization, you're talking about streamlining processes to integrate what we might normally call ADR or alternative dispute resolution, or ODR or online dispute resolution, into the bigger picture of civil justice. So there is a question coming, I promise. This is kind of not unfamiliar to us who read Professor Susskind's work, as I'm sure you're very familiar with him as well. And he's long argued that online courts should integrate ADR and ODR to provide a more streamlined and efficient system. And a couple of years ago, we were very fortunate in the department and in the school to host a bit of a discussion between Richard Susskind and between Lord Reid, the president of Supreme Court and so Lord Reed made sort of two points in response to Professor Susskind. So I'm going to act as a little proxy here for Laura Beat and give the same points because I'd love to hear your views on them and I think you will have some real insight into this. The first was that he said that individuals most in need of advice are the ones least likely to be able to formulate their complaints or legal position using standard forms or drop down menus or something like that. And so they would be the ones perhaps least likely to be able to navigate an online system. And the second was around the importance of the publicity role and function of the courts, that courts are public, Bill ADR and ODR are not public. And he called this the vital part of the constitutional function of the court, you know, the visibility of justice. And so there's a worry about if more decision making, more dispute resolution is being done in this triage phase, we could lose that. So have you any thoughts on how we could address these two challenges, what we might call the access challenge and the transparency challenge, if we are to take this more holistic view of civil justice and dispute resolution?
- [29:36]
B
Well, I said in my talk, didn't I, that the digitally disadvantaged must be catered for. But don't overstate the number of people who are digitally disadvantaged. Old people may in some cases be in that category. Young people who are not very often in that category, they do everything on their mobile phones and it's not a difficulty for them to go online and make a claim. In fact, the language of the online claim process is aimed at people not above seventh grade, as the Americans would have it. That was what Shannon Salter from the Dispute Resolution Tribunal in British Columbia told me was the case there. And it's what we're aiming at here, too. So the process is going to be extremely simple and they won't need advice to formulate it, unless it is a difficult, complex claim, in which case, anticipating something in the Q and A, lawyers will still be very much required because lawyers will not be affected by the bulk claims being dealt with more quickly and at lower cost online. So that's the first point. And the second point about open justice is, I think, obviously critical. I believe, as Lord Reid does, in an open, transparent system, a system which is properly scrutinized, where the public has proper oversight and can ensure not only that there is access to justice, but also that once you get to the seat of justice, justice is done. And it can only be done if it can be seen to be done. So I'm entirely on side with that. I don't think that means that the justice process must stand still and take place in very large buildings with magnificent windows like the ones behind me, and not online. There are two reasons for that. First of all, it wasn't always possible for everybody to get to those large buildings with magnificent windows in order to see justice done. And yet justice was still scrutinized by the press and by people who were able to attend. And there is no earthly reason why online justice cannot be scrutinized and and open to people to look at what is going on, to observe and to see how it works, and to monitor its progress and ensure that it is open, transparent and appropriate. And obviously we will need to work out systems by which that occurs. But that is precisely the purpose of the the online rules committee that I suggested hopefully may be able to come into place in my address.
- [32:44]
A
Thank you. And just one other question I have and then we'll start taking because questions are flooding in from the Q and A. So I'll take one more chance to abuse my position, which is I think one concern that some people have about the greater use of technology in supporting the resolution of disputes is something called the technological legal lock in which is what occurs when we take the law as it is now and design a dispute resolution service about that, perhaps using something like a judicial assistive system or something to guide parties as to a likely outcome. And as a result, the law slightly ossifies because parties are told by the technology, by the expert systems, that the chances of success are 90% X, 10% Y or whatever. Is there ways that we can try and prevent what we might call the current legal system from being locked in, meaning that the law ends up slightly out of step with future norms? In essence, a really important function of the judge as a human is that you're aware when things change in society and you can be reflexive to that within the framework of the common law. Whereas a technologically designed system for very good reasons might lack a little bit of that flexibility. So is there a way to keep the human element in there for that reason?
- [34:13]
B
Well, I'm delighted to hear that judges have regarded as such a forward looking preacher because it's not always how they're thought of and certainly judges are not intended to be phased out. In my approach, there will always be cases that are difficult and that require the input of judges, maybe in face to face hearings where there'll be a consideration of a difficult legal question after argument whether it's written or oil. And it always will be important for judges to be up to date to understand developments in society and to provide that input to avoid the situation that you're referring to. But that's not really an excuse for not providing smart mechanisms to resolve the bulk of disputes from which people really want to have it resolved and move on. There's a tremendous economic drag in society by the millions, literally millions of disputes that are unresolved because it's too costly and too time consuming to get them sorted out. And we need to find mechanisms to resolve those disputes transparently, cheaply, quickly, but whilst allowing the law to develop through the mechanism of the common law, which we use at the moment, which will still involve legal cases being decided at a high level in difficult situations, both for small and large cases, as happens at the moment. But don't allow the tail to wag the dog. In the Court of Appeals Civil Division, over which I preside as Master of the Rolls, we hear less than 1,000 substantive disputes a year. And there are millions of disputes in England and Wales every year that real people have to deal with. And what I'm talking about is getting a system which is fit for purpose and modern, but that won't affect the development of the common law, to which I am absolutely, I should tell you, committed.
- [36:31]
A
Thank you. I think. So what I'm going to do is start taking questions from the Q and A and I'm going to take the first one and slightly rephrase it and expand upon it a little bit because I think it might contextualize it more. So Alsena Jeffers has asked, how will the poor get access to the court service? Now, of course, in first instance, it does appear that of course this is going to make it easier to get access because of the way it opened up. So I think maybe to expand upon that a little bit. Bit, you know, how will the poor get access to the courts if. Is there to be a two tier justice system where if you're poor you will be dealt with by adr, odr, automated decision making, mediation or whatever, and only if you're either wealthy enough or you have access to good enough legal advice, will you kind of cut through and find the fast track to actually end up before a judge like yourself?
- [37:25]
B
No, I don't think so. I'm really, really keen that. And indeed the whole purpose of online justice is to ensure that disputes can be resolved for everyone. So again, as I said in my presentation, there will need, and there already are, mechanisms so that those who don't have access to the Internet, can still use the same systems and will be assisted to use those systems so they won't be deprived of access to the systems that people with better technology have. Secondly, we don't at the moment have a single website or a single place that people can go to get a remedy for a wrong. You have to know where you're going, you have to go and see a solicitor in many cases or you have to know how to file a case on CE file in commercial disputes, or you have to know which ombudsman to go to if you have a dispute with a utility, etc, etc, and I'm very keen that there should be a front end even in advance of the portals. So it's at the very mouth of my funnel which will be a website that you can go to, which will you'll simply feed in the kind of dispute. You'll say, I've got a boundary dispute, I've got a dispute with the gas company, I've got a dispute with a pharmaceutical supplier, I've got an online dispute, et cetera. And you will then be directed to the place to go. And the place you will go to will not be a place where you have to pay a large fee. It'll be a pre action portal of which there are already many, but they're not integrated. It'll be first, almost certainly in many, many cases, a pre action portal which will attempt to apply a mechanism that sorts out the problem quickly and effectively, in other words, suggests remedies. Because in 99% of cases, Andrew, the answer to the problem is very simple. You know, if it's a case of a running down case, the insurers, if you can get to the insurers and you can feed in the details, a settlement is nearly always reached. If it's a debt claim and somebody is, you're suing your builder, your builder is suing you. Normally there's a very simple solution. The works were done, but not quite as well and you need to have the £200 to pay £200 less because that's the cost of the remedial works. So these disputes I'm talking about really are very simple. But can I just say something else? I mentioned it in my talk, but I think it's important. These disputes have a disproportionate effect on people's lives and by the way, particularly for people less privileged people and people without means, they get incredibly involved and disrupted and worried and anxious by the fact that they're involved in a Dispute. It may be a very small dispute, but it may be very large dispute to them. And I shouldn't talk about family because I'm not in charge of family justice, but family disputes are even worse. They're incredibly disruptive and they have an economic effect. I'm talking at the London School of Economics. They have an economic effect on our entire society because if we have literally millions of people a year involved in disputes that weigh on their minds and their psychological welfare and stop them from performing both personally and economically in society, that's a very bad thing. So the quicker we can get the bulk of disputes resolved, the better. And my approach is to get people to concentrate on, in terms of dispute resolution, on resolution rather than the dispute. And the process at the moment has been little bit adversarial even for small disputes, whereby people have been expecting litigants, expect a judge sitting in a large building to resolve their dispute, even if it's capable of much more straightforward resolution. So I would like to see a culture whereby the emphasis is on resolution and the emphasis is on getting a result and moving on, which in many cases is what everybody wants.
- [42:25]
A
It's very interesting and actually I'm going to pick up on one of the questions here to give, to give a slightly different spin. I mean, it is of course accepted orthodoxy and it's clearly beneficial to society and to economy to deal with disputes without delay, because delay is both both a social and an economic drag. And so the orthodoxy is also pushed through disputes quickly. But Peter Selby is asking a slightly different take on this, which is interesting to get your view on. So Peter says one of the striking impressions a rare visitor to court often encounters is the slowness of the process. Notes are taken in longhand, etc. This seems frustrating, but on the floor reflection, it often seems that slowing down is an important part of the process. One of the results of online life is a speeding up, which can interfere with the pause necessary to come before a fair conclusion. Does Sir Jeffrey have views about speeding up? So I think Peter's kind of pointing out that sometimes pause for reflection can be a positive thing, both for judges and for parties before they press on to the next stage. If we speed things up too much and we take out these pauses, do we risk losing something of the process?
- [43:41]
B
In some cases, of course, but not in all cases. In fact, OCMC online civil money claims I think the fastest case has been resolved in 10 minutes online. There wasn't any need for reflection because the defendant had to pay the money and was prepared to do so once challenged by the system. But of course, he's right that in the human brain does require time for reflection, and the legal process has historically given plenty of time for reflection. But I don't think it needs as much time as sometimes cases have taken in the past. So, yes, you need time for material reflection, particularly when you have a difficult legal question. And that's why decisions are not always rendered immediately, and judges take time precisely for that purpose. And also people need time to come to terms with a position which is different from the one they personally have expressed. But I don't think any of this is a reason for not going down a route that deals with as many claims as possible as quickly and cheaply as possible, because that's what access to justice means. I always say that when I came into the legal profession and my figures are completely plucked out of the air, but when I came into the legal profession, which was, I'm afraid, quite a long time ago, I started studying law in 1973, so we can't even calculate how long that is a go, there were very few people who could get access to justice. There was legal aid, but solicitors were very difficult to get to. A lot of people, less privileged people didn't in fact use the services of solicitors. And certainly many rights went unvindicated. And I'm sure now the position is really a lot, lot better in the sense that some of our processes are more accessible to more people, and that's a good thing. And I hope that will continue to improve. And I think the online space will give more access to justice, and I think we'll have more disputes as a result. But if they're quickly resolved, that's absolutely fine and healthy for the economy and for our society. We really need to make people able to access the justice that we're so famous for around the world.
- [46:35]
A
Just moving on. I mean, there's a question that a couple of people have asked, which you've anticipated both in your talk and earlier on in some of your answers to the questions, but the impact on the wider legal profession. So both James Capedia and Steve Warby have asked questions about what your sort of funneling or gateway process might mean for the legal profession more widely. Because, I mean, I suppose historically if I had a question that I needed answered about a legal claim or something, I would go to a local lawyer and I would ask him or her for advice and they might tell me what the answer is, or they might then point me in the direction of making a claim. It seems to me that this new streamlined system will offer a way to bypass the lawyer and the legal advice. So the question from both is, does this mean less of a role for lawyers? Is there less of a demand for legal advice services in this new process, or are lawyers still as important to the process?
- [47:35]
B
Well, some of these processes are accessible at the moment only to lawyers, in fact, or only to representatives. I don't think that it will affect legal practice, which in this country has been very successful over many years and our lawyers are very well regarded internationally. I think that is because lawyers are actually needed where there is a difficult problem and where their insight adds value and is necessary in order to achieve the resolution. I've spoken about, but I'm talking about the whole picture of justice, not just the very large cases where lawyers are necessary, but including the whole perspective from cases on ebay, which lawyers really have nothing to add to the one end, and through cases which are very straightforward in the mid range, where sometimes lawyers are needed and sometimes not. I have said many times that lawyers have nothing to fear because their job is to help people in numerous ways, from small ways, in family cases, in tribunal cases, employment cases, and in cases like boundary disputes and everything that arises wherever they can. And they will continue to do so. People will continue to need help, they'll continue to need the legal position explained to them, they'll continue to need advice. But what I'm trying to do is to make sure that people who don't, I mean, people who go to lawyers now normally are directed to the right place to vindicate the right that they want, or to get the remedy they need, but. Or to be told that they don't have a remedy, which is another great and important function of lawyers. But in many, many cases, the thing is so straightforward that it shouldn't be allowed to fester. It should be possible simply to go online, deal with it, get your remedy, and move on with your life. And that is a great benefit, as I say, both to society and the economy.
- [50:08]
A
That's fantastic. And I agree. I think the lawyer shouldn't feel threatened by this. I mean, I think we've known for years that the whole legal profession is something that needs to, to evolve and adapt and change. And as with all other jobs, technology is changing what it means, but it doesn't mean the role of the lawyer is lessened. It means that you learn new skills and you scale up. And hopefully we're going to teach our students that, you know, as they go through our program. And with that, actually we'd ask a question from, from a first year law student, Jian. Simple sorry, Jian, for getting your name slightly wrong there. So she asks the the Internet has posed a threat for many institutions, both private and public, with regards to data breaches and security risks. This is compounded by increased commercialization of cyber attacks and services such as this and the use of untraceable cyber cryptocurrencies for payment. Is a centralized digital justice system at risk of an attack? And if such an attack came, would the risk be that the system as a whole crumbled under it? How could we mitigate threats so very topical, given that we believe Joe Biden was talking to Vladimir Putin about Russian cyber attacks at their summit yesterday? So how can we mitigate the institutional risks of this?
- [51:29]
B
Well, first of all, I don't think we should be so cautious in developing systems and processes for the future that we take every risk as meaning that progress is impossible. That's not my approach and I think it would be a very bad approach. Of course there are risks with any online system. There are risks with the blockchain. There are risks with crypto assets and smart contracts and all the mechanisms of the future. There are risks with artificial intelligence that could form the subject of an entirely new talk. But what I think the questioner is asking about really is security and mechanisms that need to be put in place to ensure that those risks do not destroy or prevent the operation of the system. And as we know that is a massive industry now, security in the online space. It's extremely important. One doesn't develop any software now without security systems. And we also know some of the.
- [52:44]
A
More.
- [52:48]
B
Newsworthy risks that exist. But as I say, my view is that we mustn't be so cautious that we prevent forward progress because we're concerned about problems that may arise. We simply prepare for those problems and protect our systems in the way that we certainly can and should.
- [53:17]
A
I think we're almost getting out of time, but I think hopefully probably we've got time for. There's still unanswered questions and I do apologize if you've asked a question we haven't got to. But I think one that I really sort of comes to me and speaks to me here that I definitely would like to hear your views on is from Kanti Shah who says, I think digital justice systems would be of enormous value to developing countries. Do you agree? Especially countries like India that you've visited in the past. So is this something that the uk, the England, Wales experience can pathfind for countries and governments elsewhere.
- [53:55]
B
I think so. I think that the online justice system that we're introducing here can be a model which other jurisdictions may wish to follow. And certainly I visited India many times, times, and the justice system there is notoriously slow and it would be speeded up dramatically if it were possible to bring online claims. It prevents, of course, people having to travel so much and it would cut down the delays. I think it's. It's very interesting. There are different approaches to online justice, as I've already alluded twice to, the British Columbia system, which is a very accessible system, but with limited types of claim. In China and Kazakhstan, they have online justice systems, but there are difficulties there because they live stream a lot of cases that we wouldn't consider live streaming in this country, criminal cases and cases of that kind where there would be sensitivities about it. So it's not that there are always difficulties, questions to be answered, cultural issues which will change the type of system that is suitable to the particular country. And I'm certainly not sitting here answering any questions for other countries as to what is best for them. But I really do think that, as I say, in economic terms, it's very valuable to resolve disputes expeditiously and at a proportionate cost. And it's something that we haven't paid enough attention to. And, you know, it goes without saying that to my mind, the system is steeped in the 19th century because that's where it came from, and reform is well overdue. But I'm very pleased to say it's happening here. I'm sure other countries will follow. Covid, by the way, has had a similar effect in other countries by making people realize that things can be done technologically that were never done in that way before. So I'm not talking about India here, but in many, many countries, I would envisage that there will be developments arising from what's happened during COVID Thank you.
- [56:30]
A
Thank you very much. Well, we're almost out of time, so just a couple of things for me to finish and reflect upon. The first is, of course, this is part of the LSE Covid events. And you know, the effect of COVID is obviously in many ways been devastating, but it also has shown us what we can achieve and what, what we can do. And as Sir Jeffrey has said this afternoon, there were already things that were in train, the English and Welsh court system were doing, Her Majesty's courts and Tribunal Service were doing. And I think it's really exciting to think of, you know, what's happened in the last 18 months is also being a springboard for something transformative and not just something we have to recover from. And I think this afternoon Sir Geoffrey has absolutely answered his essay question. He would certainly get a very good mark from the department because he did address what he was set to address, which is fantastic. So I just now have the pleasure of closing the event by sort of thanking Sir Jeffrey for his time and for his really interesting talk and the really interesting discussion we had with both the Q and A and between us before beforehand. And thank you all for coming along and listening to him today. So thank you very much, Sir Jeffrey. Thank you all of our attendees, and thank you, LSE events for putting this on. Thank you all.