3. Evidence base
• Literature review judicial reform, reform procedure
• Innovation projects and experience
– international criminal courts, supreme courts,
courts and their organizations , NL, Can, Ken, Ye
• Seminars with court leaders
– The Hague, Singapore, San José (Costa Rica), Addis
Ababa and Tunis
• Describing innovations at innovatingjustice.com
• Weekly workshop with our network of experts in
our Justice Innovation Lab in The Hague
5. No alternative in sight for ….
Adjudication
ADR:
• Mediation only fair with adjudication
• Stand alone mediation negligible after 30 years (OECD)
• Arbitration < 5% of disputes (OECD)
• Ombudsmen, tribunals, committees, media, government
agencies, majors also provide “binding” adjudication
6. What is the value added by a
typical European court?
Median from CEPEJ Data 2012
11. All this value is created …
By 18 judges
including 5 higher court judges
+ staff
Budget of €2.7 million
= €27 per citizen
12. Effective courts add even more value …
By being available!
If accessible:
• 50% of disputes settle out of court
• Up to 70% of incoming civil/criminal
cases settle
17. Courts create value …
Affordable
Accessible
Timely
By delivering excellent procedures
Diagnosis and intake
Collecting evidence
Facilitating dialogue/settlement
Growing towards final judgment
Implementation
18. Courts are working on this
58% US court administrators say
"My court is innovative“
19. We found 100s of court innovations
rug courts, Mental heath courts, Judicial mediation, Facilitadores judiciale
"Hot tubbing" experts, courtinnovation.org ,Courthouse dogs, Justice on
heels, Therapeutic jurisprudence, Settlement conferences mediator/judge
Australian Centre for Justice innovation, Money court online, eLitigation
ngapore, Water court, Co-parenting court, Neighbour courts, Justices of th
peace, Kaikaia: adjudication software for juvenile courts in Nicaragua,
Videoconferncing, Blinded experts, innovatingjustice.com,Justice in your
ommunity Peru, OECD, Commercial courts with auditors and business men
Employment tribunals, World Justice Project, Religious family courts
ndonesia, Patent courts, Disability courts, Social security tribunals, BC Civi
esolution centre, Juvenile courts, Immigration tribunals, ODR intake forms
QandA intakes, Multidoor courthouse, Services to unrepresented litigants
27. Is likely to deliver procedures that are …
Specialized
Fully integrated
Simple to operate
Developed as product
Under your responsibility
Supported online …
28. Diagnosis
Free
Online adjudication platform
Adjustable to
• Case type
• Jurisdiction
• Advice
• Referral
• Reflection
Intake
€50?
• Facts/data
• Issues
• Possible solutions
Dialogue
€100?
• Compare views
• Agree solutions
Settlement
Free or €€€
Legal information
Calculation tools
Neutral legal advice
Financial planning
Other services
€500
• Mediation
• Online or offline
Decision
€?
• Judge
• Remaining
issues
30. In one or two years …
Courts can use smart online adjudication
systems
Fully configurable
To problem type
To national rules
For €25-100 per case filed
32. But not as much as elsewhere
What are main challenges
for court leaders?
33. 1. THE ACCESS TO JUSTICE TRAP
– Less delay, more effective and accessible
procedure = 0verburdened court
– Little say over product and price
(procedure, fees)
2. Need for more HUMAN,
less complex procedures
– Serving people with or without lawyers
3. Need to enhance neutrality,
INDEPENDENCE, accountability
36. Examples of strategic options:
What should the procedure be able to achieve?
1. Excellent court of last resort?
2. Excellence in solving legal issues?
3. Resolving problems in excellent way?
What does not work:
Deciding on strategy by debate among judges
37. The benefits of choice
• Focus, motivated people, easier management
• Each option leads to clear but different
– Innovation goals and terms of reference, court size, skills,
staffing, IT systems, links other adjudicators, partnerships,
relationships with users, legal professionals, general public
• If courts do not choose, others will for them
– Random politics, ministries, competing adjudicators
39. Funding models for courts:
Huge barrier to innovation
Innovation > more value/less costs >
more cases filed >
uncertain funding > risk of financial disaster >
court leaders take no risk >
no innovation
40. Good funding models within reach
• Innovation = lower costs + more
value
• More willingness to pay
• Sophisticated fee and funding
systems for specialized services
41. 3. Courts take responsibility for
design and maintenance of
procedures
42. Rules of procedure are
barrier to innovation
Great principles
Rules old, detailed, not updated
Innovation has to wait until rules change
Judges twist laws if they innovate
44. Health care sector
Each year 10,000s of innovations
in diagnosis, treatments, software and
hardware, computer programs, medicine,
methods for surgery, instruments
45. Because of risks, quality concerns
Health care innovations
Are certified/licensed/monitored
BUT NOT DESIGNED
By rule makers
46. Our proposal:
Future laws of
procedure:
Reframing
Principles
+
Certification
system for
procedures
+
Monitoring
47. Releasing the value of courts
Well monitored:
1. Strategic independence
2. Financial independence
3. Independent designing and
maintaining excellent
procedures
