BACL’s 75th Anniversary Workshop took place at King’s College, Cambridge, on 7-8 July 2025. It was an inspiring celebration of the continuing relevance of comparative law in UK legal education. We are deeply grateful to the 30 legal academics and research students who contributed their insight and enthusiasm.
The workshop featured 19 speakers including Early Career Researchers, who discussed the methodology, substance and teaching of comparative law. Participants represented a diverse range of topics, institutions, seniority levels and genders. The final roundtable session offered a candid reflection on the challenges facing comparative law teaching and research in the UK post-Brexit, and on the findings of BACL’s 2024–2025 national survey, which were also presented. We are pleased that the conversation continues through a series of blog posts based on the workshop’s presentations and discussions.
Access to Justice in an age of digitisation – what can we learn from a comparative perspective?
In a workshop to celebrate the 75th anniversary of BACL, on the 7/8 July 2025 in Cambridge, participants were asked to reflect on: How do we address the existing or potential limitations of legal comparison, and how does legal comparison properly bridge knowledge? I took on this challenge and propose a comparative framework to evaluate and understand the performance of the digitalisation of justice processes.
In an era marked by rapid digitisation, access to justice faces both unprecedented challenges and transformative opportunities. This blogpost explores how digital justice can be conceptualised comparatively in the form of digital innovation of legal systems by examining how the shift towards digital justice is navigated across different jurisdictions. How can we use comparisons to help us make sense of digital justice systems that are evolving across the world? How can we map success and grasp the impact of digital justice reforms comparatively? In order to address these questions, I offer a discussion focussed on design, inclusivity, transparency, and trust in digital legal processes. I conclude by suggesting that legal comparisons enable critical reflections on how to create more inclusive and responsive justice systems. In other words, we can learn from comparisons how to better evaluate reforms and digitization – within their (national) context. In doing so, I raise broader questions about how access to justice is conceptualised and experienced in the digital age. The blogpost is divided into three parts: approaches to comparisons, digital justice reforms, and multidimensional comparative framework.
- Approaches to comparison: preliminary remarks
How can comparisons help identify the success / impact of a digital justice process? What are the standards for the digital system designers, for the people using the systems and for access to justice? I consider these questions against the backdrop of the experience of the digitisation of the justice system in the UK and a few examples of other jurisdictions.
There is, of course, no single right approach to comparison, and different purposes lead to the use of different methods, which generate different outcomes. Indeed, the variety of possible comparative questions and methods is a feature of the rich and complex field of comparative law. In a paper published in 2016 (Creutzfeldt, N., Kubal, A. and Pirie, F. 2016. Introduction: Exploring the Comparative in Socio-Legal Studies. International Journal of Law in Context. 12 (4), pp. 377-389), we argued that the purpose of a comparison is generally analysis and interpretation, rather than evaluation or prescription. On the other hand, scholars argue the exact opposite, that comparative law scholarship is more about prescription and to some extent evaluation rather than analysis and interpretation (e.g. Siems, M. (2022). Comparative law. Cambridge University Press, and Shaila, S. R. (2025). A Translocal Compromise: Adoption of Anti-corruption Reforms in East Timor. Law & Social Inquiry, 1-32). This shows us that the interpretation of comparative law scholarship depends on the sources relied upon.
There are many approaches to comparisons, and the relevance and value for the study of digitization of justice is beyond the scope of this post, particularly since, in my opinion, the benefit of being a comparativist, is to be able to pick and choose the content and approach to comparisons that fits best the object of study. How can we apply comparisons in a constructive way to the digitalisation of justice? Let us have a look at some examples of recent digital justice reforms across the world.
2. Digital Justice Reforms throughout the world
The use of language to describe digitalisation of justice is the most obvious starting point. Despite using the same terms, the meanings in different contexts are very different. In the following I offer a few examples:
The UK launched in 2016 the HMCTS Reform Programme, it reached its formal conclusion in March 2025. It moved courts and tribunals from paper to digital, stabilised and secured systems and ‘set us up for the 21st century’ (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/modernising-courts-and-tribunals-benefits-of-digital-services ). The reform has not fulfilled its promised outcome and, I fear, has contributed to less access to justice (Creutzfeldt, N., Kyprianides, A., Bradford, B., & Jackson, J. (2024). Access to Justice, Digitalization and Vulnerability: Exploring Trust in Justice. Policy Press.)
In Europe, The European Union has enacted Regulation (EU) 2023/2844 and Directive (EU) 2023/2843 to enhance digital judicial cooperation in civil, commercial, and criminal matters. They enable cross-border digital communication in legal proceedings (Pasqua, M. (2025). European e-Justice Strategy 2024-2028).
In Australia, Federal and state courts widely use virtual hearings through platforms, the Commonwealth CourtsPortal provides digital access to files, court dates, and judgments. The Family Court has streamlined online dispute resolution tools for parenting and financial matters (Mowbray, A., Chung, P., & Greenleaf, G. (2023). Free Access to Law and Digital Court Decisions in Australia: Reflections and Future Directions).
In India, the e-Courts Project digitizes records, facilitates e-filing, and enables remote access to court orders. Virtual courts have been launched in traffic and petty offence matters in various states (Basu, S., & Jha, C. (2024). Evaluating ICT adoption in the Indian judiciary: challenges, opportunities, and the impact of the e-courts project. Indian JL & Just., 15, 1).
In sum, although there has been a wave of digitisation of justice processes across the world, there are different degrees of digitalisation with different impacts. For example, under the heading of digital justice reforms a variety of different things can be included: paper to digital; video hearings, e-filing systems, platforms to access, operate, navigate, and AI. In the midst of all of these differences, how can we make use of the best tools in a comparisons-toolkit to understand how the digitalisation of justice and all its promises has had such varying ranges of success? I propose to do this through a multidimensional comparative framework.
3. Multidimensional comparative framework
I propose that to evaluate reforms in a justice system we require a multidimensional comparative framework. First of all, we need to identify what it is we are comparing. Are we contrasting the old (analogue, face-to-face) system with the new (digital, hybrid) system (3.1)? Are we treating the new system as the normative standard? Or are we critically interrogating the assumptions embedded in both? Equally important is the perspective from those who the system is designed for, to be able to understand their expectations, access needs, and to evaluate the system from the bottom-up (3.2). Depending on what the objective of comparison is, the Why reason for a multi-dimensional framework changes.
3.1 Old vs New
The traditional justice system, characterized by formal procedures, physical infrastructure, and in many cases, bureaucratic complexity, is often contrasted with models that emphasize digitization, process optimization, and user-centric design (Novaković, M. (2022). A review of the efficiency of justice and other elements of the 2022–2025 CEPEJ action plan: “Digitalisation for a better justice”; Townend, J., & Welsh, L. (2023). Justice System Modernisation, Digitalisation and Data. In Observing Justice (pp. 40-64). Bristol University Press; Donoghue, J. (2017). The rise of digital justice: Courtroom technology, public participation and access to justice. The Modern Law Review, 80(6), 995-1025). However, the comparison is not merely temporal or technological; it is conceptual. The analytical question must be whether we are evaluating the “new” system relative to the “old,” or whether the new paradigm is now taken as the baseline against which all future developments are measured.
What do I mean by this in the context of a digitised justice system? I provide an example regarding the widely debated use of AI. In his recent work, Susskind (How To Think About AI: A Guide For The Perplexed. Oxford University Press 2025) posits that the integration of artificial intelligence (as part of the digitalisation process) into the justice system serves two principal functions: enhancing procedural efficiency and improving substantive outcomes. The first aim process pertains to the streamlining of legal procedures through automation, increased accessibility, and the reduction of costs and delays. AI tools can facilitate case management, legal research, and even dispute resolution, thereby making the legal process more user-friendly and equitable. The second aim outcome refers to the potential of AI to support or deliver more consistent, data-driven, and impartial decisions.
One substantial consideration that is missing in the both favourable and somewhat sceptical account and outlook for AI’s role in legal processes, is that of the people that are using these systems. Users cannot easily be divided into process and outcome recipients of the system that is imposed onto them. People are nuanced and complex –their abilities and capabilities to navigate these new systems vary. No one size fits all, this has to be taken into consideration when enhancing justice processes.
3.2 Perspectives on Success of a Digital Justice System (evaluation)
Success has to be measured and understood differently from the perspective of the various actors in the digital justice system and against the values of the justice system. Actors involved, I argue, are the system designers that measure success through efficiency, cost and process design, and the users that measure success through accessibility, fairness and the process. Lastly, the values of the justice system i.e. the evolving digital systems’ integrity and/or legitimacy (made up of many individual parts) can be measured through how all the above measures (see section 3.1) are achievable and sustainable.
I now briefly develop the three perspectives or levels of analysis involved
(1) System-Centric Perspective: [Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness] for administrative bodies or policymakers, the principal indicators of success often include cost reduction, streamlined processes, and increased institutional efficiency. These are quantifiable metrics that serve governance and resource management objectives. Within this framework, success is closely tied to system performance and sustainability in financial and operational terms.
(2) User-Centric Perspective: [Access, Trust, and Legitimacy] for users the metrics of success are more qualitative. Accessibility involves not only physical and digital entry points but also comprehension, navigation, and cultural inclusivity. Trust and perceived legitimacy are crucial; a system may be procedurally sound yet fail if it lacks the confidence of its users. Digital reforms that neglect these dimensions risk exacerbating existing inequities or fostering alienation.
(3) Justice-Centric Perspective: [Fairness, Procedural Integrity, and Sustainability] the normative goal of any justice system is the realization of justice itself, which must be understood in terms of fairness, impartiality, and due process. This perspective transcends both system efficiency and user satisfaction by situating reform within a broader ethical and legal framework.
These standpoints do not always connect to sets of values in the neat way I intimate here – for example, trust can also be a system-centric value. But it remains that, in my view, an effective evaluation of justice system reforms requires a multidimensional framework that integrates systemic efficiency, user-centred design, and normative conceptions of justice (Figure 1). Reforms that optimize one domain at the expense of others may achieve short-term gains but risk undermining the legitimacy and sustainability of the system as a whole. Therefore, any comparative analysis must balance these perspectives.
Figure 1. Multidimensional comparative framework
In sum, these comparative dimensions are interrelated and mutually reinforcing, pointing to the need for an all-inclusive framework that recognizes the complex interplay between technological change, user experience, and the foundational values of justice and trust. In the digitisation of justice processes we have to think about design, inclusivity, transparency, and trust, each playing a critical role in shaping equitable and effective legal systems. A comparative perspective offers valuable lessons, cautions, and opportunities for more equitable, efficient, and inclusive justice systems in a digital age. It encourages a global dialogue about innovation while remaining sensitive to local contexts and challenges. Returning to my earlier point (section 1) about many approaches to comparisons being possible, I propose, in the context of the digitization of access to justice, a multidimensional comparative framework so that we consider the three system-, user-, and justice-perspectives, and their embeddedness and dependence on the local and national legal culture. I hope that this comparative framework can assist to analytically unpick complex and interrelated digital justice systems.
Posted by Naomi Creutzfeldt (Professor of Law and Society, Kent Law School, n.creutzfeldt@kent.ac.uk)
British Association of Comparative Law 