Written by Digital justice · Litigants in person · Access to justice
Technology can reduce some of the pressure of legal proceedings, but only if it is designed around the people who actually use the justice system. Online dispute resolution, guided preparation tools, secure document portals and AI-assisted information can help litigants understand the route ahead. Used badly, the same tools can increase confusion, exclusion and procedural stress.
Publication snapshot
- Legal technology may reduce procedural stress where it improves clarity, preparation, communication and document control.
- Litigants in person need route guidance, deadline warnings, plain-language explanations and human escalation points.
- AI, online portals and ODR tools carry risks around accuracy, data protection, bias, digital exclusion and over-reliance.
- The correct design question is not “can this be digitised?” but “does this make the process fairer, safer and easier to navigate?”
The core point: technology should reduce legal stress, not simply move it online
Legal proceedings can place heavy pressure on people who are already dealing with conflict, uncertainty, cost and delay. For litigants in person, the burden can be sharper. They may have to understand procedure, deadlines, evidence, hearings, forms and legal language without professional representation.
Technology can help. It can make information easier to find, help users organise documents, provide route maps, support online dispute resolution and reduce unnecessary journeys or waiting time.
But digital process is not automatically humane process. A confusing portal can be as stressful as a confusing paper form. A chatbot can misdirect a vulnerable user. A remote hearing can reduce travel anxiety for one person while increasing participation difficulty for another. The real test is whether technology improves comprehension, control and procedural fairness.
Where technology can reduce pressure
The best use of legal technology is not novelty. It is targeted pressure reduction. The question is where the legal process currently causes avoidable confusion, duplication, delay or fear.
Before the dispute escalates
Plain-language tools can help users identify whether the issue is legal advice, complaint handling, mediation, ombudsman, court, tribunal or urgent safeguarding action.
Before documents are filed
Guided checklists can reduce panic by showing what evidence is needed, what deadline applies and what must not be missed.
Before a hearing
Preparation tools can explain what will happen, who may be present, how to organise notes and when to ask for adjustments.
After a decision
Route maps can help users distinguish complaint, review, reconsideration, appeal, enforcement and settlement options.
Useful digital interventions, if designed with care
The draft identifies several possible technological tools. Some are already familiar; others are more speculative. The strongest approach is to treat each tool as a possible intervention, not as a guaranteed solution.
Online dispute resolution
ODR can help where parties need a structured route to resolve suitable disputes without immediately entering a full adversarial process. It is most useful where the platform is clear, accessible, proportionate and supported by human escalation.
Guided legal information
Interactive explainers, decision trees and preparation checklists can reduce cognitive load by turning legal process into manageable steps.
AI-assisted preparation
AI may help users summarise documents, structure timelines or identify questions. It should not be treated as a source of legal truth without checking against authoritative material.
Secure document management
Well-designed portals can reduce lost documents, duplicate requests and unclear evidence trails. Security, access permissions and audit logs matter more than fashionable labels.
The design warning
A tool that saves administrative time but leaves users more confused has not improved access to justice. The user’s stress, comprehension and ability to participate are part of the design problem.
The risk test: digital justice can also create new harm
Technology can make justice more accessible, but it can also create new barriers. A vulnerable user may be excluded by poor digital literacy, lack of equipment, disability, language barriers, trauma, poverty, lack of private space or fear of making an irreversible mistake online.
AI creates its own risks. The Law Society’s generative-AI guidance identifies risks around confidentiality, data protection, cyber security, output integrity, bias and accountability. Judicial AI guidance for England and Wales also warns about bias, hallucinations, confidentiality and personal responsibility for AI-assisted material.
Wrong legal information can be more harmful when it is delivered confidently by a tool.
Digital-only routes can disadvantage people who need human assistance or reasonable adjustments.
Legal documents may contain sensitive personal data, privileged material and third-party information.
Users may defer to a tool even where the output is incomplete, outdated or factually wrong.
There must be a clear answer to who is responsible when a tool misdirects a user.
Automated routes must not obscure urgent deadlines, injunction risk, eviction, limitation or safeguarding issues.
Human oversight is not optional
Technology should support judgment, not replace it in high-risk legal situations. A useful digital system should know when to stop and escalate. That means clear signposting, human review points, emergency warnings and a route for users to challenge or correct what the system has done.
The human-in-the-loop test
Before a digital justice tool is relied upon, the provider should be able to answer these questions.
What problem is the tool solving?
Which users may be excluded?
What must a human review?
How can mistakes be corrected?
Implementation principles for psychologically safer digital justice
The aim should be a justice system that is digitally clearer, not merely digitally cheaper. That requires user-centred design, testing with litigants in person, accessibility planning, trauma-aware communication and proper evaluation after deployment.
Design around real users
Test with litigants in person, vulnerable users, disabled users, people with low digital confidence and frontline advice agencies.
Make the route visible
Show users where they are, what comes next, what deadline matters and what happens if they do nothing.
Protect sensitive data
Use secure systems, clear permissions, retention rules and warnings before users upload private or third-party material.
Keep human support available
Digital routes should include assistance, escalation and alternatives where the user cannot safely proceed alone.
Evaluate consequences
Measure not only speed and cost, but comprehension, participation, user stress, complaints, errors and exclusion.
Source anchors
These anchors support the legal-tech and access-to-justice framework. They do not verify previous Legal Lens or LinkedIn articles, individual case studies, mental-health diagnoses, VR proposals, blockchain claims or specific foreign justice-system outcomes.
- SRA: Solving legal issues through technology — ODR and unmet legal need project material.
- SRA Innovate — SRA resources on innovation, lawtech, AI and technology in legal services.
- SRA compliance tips for AI and technology — governance, risk assessment, policies, training, monitoring and client-centred decision-making.
- The Law Society: Generative AI — the essentials — guidance on generative-AI risks, confidentiality, data protection, output checking and lifecycle governance.
- Judicial AI guidance, October 2025 — guidance on AI risks including hallucinations, bias, confidentiality and personal responsibility.
Closing point
Technology can reduce some of the psychological pressure of legal proceedings. It can make the route clearer, the documents easier to manage, the preparation less chaotic and the dispute less intimidating.
But technology can also intensify pressure if it is confusing, unreliable, inaccessible or falsely reassuring. Digital justice should not mean asking anxious users to navigate a more automated maze.
The Legal Lens point is simple: a better justice system is not just faster or more digital. It is clearer, safer, more accountable and designed around the people who have to use it under pressure.
Digital justice and litigant-support review
Get a free written assessment before relying on legal tech to manage a live dispute
Legal Lens can help identify whether a digital tool, AI output, court portal step or proposed article is helping the user understand the process, or creating new risk. The review can separate access benefit, legal risk, data protection, evidence gaps, mental-pressure points and solicitor-review needs.
Deadline, hearing, evidence bundle, complaint route, disclosure or appeal risk.
Output, route advice, draft wording, uploaded document set or automated form.
Accuracy, authority, data, privilege, accessibility and human escalation.
Independent Legal Lens consultancy. Legal Lens is not a regulated solicitors’ firm, mental-health service or technology assurance provider. A preliminary assessment is not a substitute for regulated legal advice, clinical support, urgent safeguarding help or representation where that is needed.