Access to justice 2.0

18 February 2011 by

A sense of doom is gripping the legal profession in the face of significant cuts to the justice system. Amongst other consequences, legal aid may soon be reformed almost out of existence, meaning that lawyers will face the double jeopardy of fewer clients and more nightmarish cases against litigants in person.

There is little we can do to prevent the cuts. But a shrinking justice system could have an unintended consequence: it may inspire lawyers to take a more activist approach in promoting access to justice, and to find creative ways of bringing the public closer to the law.

In 1999, Lord Woolf stressed that a basic principle of access to justice was that the system should be understandable to those who use it. The resulting civil justice reforms simplified court language and rules. But the justice system is still a frightening place for non-lawyers.

It is time for version 2.0 of the accessibility agenda. Since 1999 the internet has become ubiquitous. This has had many effects on the justice system, from jurors researching their murder trials online to the proliferation of self-help websites for litigants with speeding tickets.

Lawyers themselves have been slower on the uptake than the industrious public, but they are finally catching up. It is now possible to start a website with the click of a few buttons, and case-law has been available for free via the indispensable BAILII for a number of years. As a result a flurry of specialist legal blogs (or blawgs) have been set up by solicitors and barristers, and they have also begun to congregate en mass on Twitter.

For example, on Matrix / Olswang’s UK Supreme Court Blog, experts discuss the latest developments at the nation’s highest court of appeal. The long-established by Pinsent Masons provides updates on IT and e-commerce. CharonQC offers an irreverent but incisive perspective, and Nearly Legal comments on most important housing law decisions. The UK Human Rights Blog covers  all aspects of human rights law.

There are campaigning blawgs too. Inforrm’s Blog promotes media responsibility whilst solicitor David Allen Green’s Jack of Kent pushes a free speech agenda by combining laser-sharp editorials with the tools of his media law practice.

There are many, many more. The legal blogosphere contains a multitude of voices, viewpoints and, of course, levels of quality. But legal blogs share one feature. These services, which are often as comprehensive and more nimble than their pay-per-view cousins, are completely free to use.

Two questions arise. First, can a free service be trusted? The answer is try one and see. Most are written by dedicated professionals with a lot to lose if they get the detail wrong. And the blawgers are increasingly aware of each other, leading to a vibrant, collaborative and largely self-regulating arena.

Secondly, what is in it for the lawyers who spend hours per week writing content for no fee? Try blogging. Nothing keeps you better updated than publishing your thoughts on the law. And being able to explain the law in plain language is one of the key skills of a good lawyer.

It may also make you money. The UK Human Rights Blog received over 40,000 hits last month, after only 10 months in operation. Great publicity for my chambers from a service that has cost practically nothing to set up. And better understanding the law may help members of the public realise when they need a lawyer. So “free” does not have to mean “charity”.

The courts getting involved too. The new Supreme Court has a statutory duty to be “accessible” to the public and, in light of this, produces an online press release alongside every judgment, summarising the main principles. The effect of these summaries cannot be understated. Any member of the public or the non-legal press now has a reasonable chance of understanding what our highest appeal court is up to, although this has not completely prevented misreporting of decisions. This is even more important for human rights decisions which can affect large sections of the public. This system should now be rolled out to the Court of Appeal and High Court.

Last night, I spoke alongside legal blogging doyens David Allen Green (Jack of KentNew Statesman) and Carl Gardner (Head of Legal) at a discussion on the future of legal blogging, to an audience composed entirely of legal bloggers and journalists. The atmosphere was friendly and excitable, and the overwhelming sentiment was that legal blogging and tweeting have a great future and can co-exist and complement traditional legal journalism, whilst also keeping journalists on their toes.

Bringing the public closer to the law is no panacea. There will always be a need for legal experts to conduct litigation just as patients need doctors to perform surgery. And legal aid cannot be replaced by DIY. But Lord Woolf was right to say that making the law understandable is an essential requirement of access to justice, not to mention democracy. This is not a task for the public sector alone, and the money is running out. So get blogging.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts


  1. Nick Homes says:

    Apropos making the law understandable, I initiated the FreeLegalWeb project (

    Although we’ve started with a Housing Law pilot, I hope you will contribute. I’ll be in touch.

  2. Online is a great way to provide legal services, so long as the legal area concerned is suitable.

    I have run a subscription online information service for residential landlords and tenants for nearly 10 years, providing guidance, forms, and a bit of one to one adivice in the forum.

    I find that members really appreciate the fact that the service is run by a qualified solicitor, and the fact that they can get answers from me for quick questions, generally within 24 hours (and usually a lot quicker than that). Although the service is basically ‘one to many’ I try to give it the feel of a ‘one to one’ service as much as I can.

    A lot of the members have been with me for many years and I have done evictions for them andother work too, although my main source of income is the subscriptions.

    Online legal information services websites are a new way of practising law, and I am surprised that more lawyers have not followed with similar services. Although it is not suitable for all areas of law I am pretty sure that there are many areas of practice which could be covered in a similar way.

    I also have a blog BTW at and tweet a bit.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: