The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Online Courts and the Future of Justice
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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
Katz, D. M., Bommarito, M. J., Gao, S., & Arredondo, P. (2024) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rsta.2023.0254 · Cited by 420
Armour, J. H., & Sako, M. (2019) · Journal of Professions and Organization · doi:10.1093/jpo/joaa001 · Cited by 139
Court innovations and access to justice in times of crisis
Sourdin, T., Li, B., & McNamara, D. M. (2020) · Health Policy and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.hlpt.2020.08.020 · Cited by 86
The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Right to a Fair Trial: Towards a Robot Judge?
Ulenaers, J. (2020) · Asian Journal of Law and Economics · doi:10.1515/ajle-2020-0008 · Cited by 86
Justice reimagined: challenges and opportunities with implementing virtual courts
Rossner, M., Tait, D. S., & McCurdy, M. L. (2021) · Current Issues in Criminal Justice · doi:10.1080/10345329.2020.1859968 · Cited by 69
Metadata
- Authors
- Susskind, R.
- Corresponding author
- Susskind, Richard
- Publisher
- Oxford University PressNew York
- Published
- 2019-11-14
- 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