CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 418Artificial Intelligence in LawDispute Resolution and Class ActionsEducation, Law, and Society

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Online Courts and the Future of Justice

Susskind, Richard·2019
DOI 10.1093/oso/9780198838364.001.0001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In Online Courts and the Future of Justice, Richard Susskind, the world’s most cited author on the future of legal services, shows how litigation will be transformed by technology and proposes a solution to the global access-to-justice problem. In most advanced legal systems, the resolution of civil disputes takes too long, costs too much, and the process is not just antiquated; it is unintelligible to ordinary mortals. The courts of some jurisdictions are labouring under staggering backlogs - 100 million cases in Brazil, 30 million in India. More people in the world now have internet access than access to justice. Drawing on almost 40 years in the fields of legal technology and jurisprudence, Susskind shows how we can use the remarkable reach of the internet (more than half of humanity is now online) to help people understand and enforce their legal rights. Online courts provide 'online judging' - the determination of cases by human judges but not in physical courtrooms. Instead, evidence and arguments are submitted through online platforms through which judges also deliver their decisions. Online courts also use technology to enable courts to deliver more than judicial decisions. These 'extended courts' provide tools to help users understand relevant law and available options, and to formulate arguments and assemble evidence. They offer non-judicial settlements such as negotiation and early neutral evaluation, not as an alternative to the public court system but as part of it. A pioneer of online courts, Susskind maintains that they will displace much conventional litigation. He rigorously assesses the benefits and drawbacks, and looks ahead, predicting how AI, machine learning, and virtual reality will likely come to dominate court service.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/oso/9780198838364.001.0001

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Richard Susskind argues that the concept of justice should include four elements: dispute resolution, dispute containment, dispute avoidance and legal health promotion.

    “Their view is well aligned with Richard Susskind's arguments on the concept of access to justice; he argues that the concept of justice should include four elements: (1) dispute resolution, (2) dispute containment, (3) dispute avoidance and (4) legal health promotion (Susskind, 2019, pp. 66-70).”

    From Access to justice in public procurement: improving judicial review through lean thinking, proactive law and legal design (2025) · cites this paper as Susskind, 2019

  • Legal systems have struggled to assist with the quantity, quality, and accessibility of legal services demanded by society.

    “legal systems have struggled to assist with the quantity, quality, and accessibility of legal services demanded by society [17–19].”

    From GPT-4 passes the bar exam (2024) · cites this paper as [19]

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Susskind, R.
Corresponding author
Susskind, Richard
Publisher
Oxford University PressNew York
Published
2019-11-14
DOI
10.1093/oso/9780198838364.001.0001
OpenAlex
W3140384463
Cited by
418
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 83 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 68 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 3
FWCI
39.79
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Artificial Intelligence in Law
  • Social Sciences › Law › Dispute Resolution and Class Actions
  • Social Sciences › Law › Education, Law, and Society
Keywords
online courts, access to justice, legal technology, civil litigation, judicial backlog, non-litigation dispute resolution, early neutral evaluation, online dispute resolution, artificial intelligence in courts, machine learning, virtual reality, future of justice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review