Digital justice system: inclusion framework and pre-action model

Summary of responses

The OPRC received 47 responses to its engagement document on Inclusion and the Pre Action Model. Responses were received from the public, advice sector organisations, service providers, legal representative bodies, public interest groups, ombudsman organisations and members of the judiciary.

The OPRC will be discussing the responses at its open meeting on 20 October, with next steps being set out by the committee in early 2026. This will include a more detailed analysis of the responses received.

The committee would like to thank all those who responded for providing such constructive and considered answers to the questions posed. Whilst the responses demonstrated broad support for the objectives and aims of the draft Inclusion Framework and Pre Action Model, there were differing views on how those objectives and aims are best achieved which the committee will need to consider fully.

A summary of responses is provided below and given many responses crossed over between those for the Inclusion Framework and Pre Action Model, it has been grouped by theme:

Access to justice

Overall, responses show broad support for the aims of the OPRC in improving access to justice, embedding early dispute resolution, and setting consistent digital and data standards. Most respondents welcome the ambition to create a fair, accessible, and inclusive justice system, while urging that the framework remains proportionate, user-centred, and supportive of innovation rather than prescriptive or burdensome.

Inclusion

A recurring theme is accessibility and inclusion. Many respondents endorse proposals to strengthen accessibility through practical measures such as providing multiple digital formats, speech-to-text options, and adjustable visual settings for colour-blind users. However, several organisations caution that accessibility should go beyond physical or sensory needs to include neurodivergent individuals, people with limited digital skills, those for whom English is a second language, and users with learning difficulties. There is strong support for user-centred design and testing, to ensure that systems reflect the needs, experiences and legal capability of real users rather than assumptions about them.

An additional theme was around the definition and scope of ‘inclusion’ and subsequently the scope of the framework. Some respondents express concern that if the framework is too extensive, providers will struggle to comply with it.  Others suggest that some elements of the framework duplicated other regulatory frameworks and therefore question whether the framework should apply to law firms or mediation bodies which are already subject to regulation.

User empowerment

Some respondents express concern that too much choice can become a barrier for users in accessing justice. Several responses set out that users might be better served by a clear, government-provided route rather than a proliferation of competing options. A recurring theme is the need to balance user autonomy and choice with clarity and simplicity of access.

Oversight of the Digital Justice System

Another key theme is oversight, accountability, and enforceability. Respondents emphasise the importance of strong monitoring mechanisms and clear definitions (such as for ‘service provider’) within the framework. Some respondents suggest the OPRC should have either direct supervisory powers or should work closely with existing regulators and ombudsman schemes to ensure standards are met. There is a repeated call for transparency through publication of data, enabling public scrutiny and informed decision-making. Some respondents warn that without sufficient accountability, frameworks risk becoming aspirational rather than operational.

Standards

Several responses highlight the need to ensure standards do not become overly onerous, particularly for small firms, start-ups, and public sector providers. Stakeholders warn that heavy compliance requirements may stifle innovation, limit participation, or deter new entrants.  Standards should be designed to raise quality and improve access to justice without restricting diversity or competition. Several respondents call for a proportionate approach to enforcement, tailored to provider size and capacity.

Collaboration

Many responses reference the importance of collaboration between OPRC, government, private providers, ombudsman schemes, and civil society to ensure frameworks are both practical and effective. Several organisations highlight their willingness to share experience and technical insight, especially where digital systems have already been implemented successfully.

Conclusion

There is support for the vision of a more inclusive, digital, and user-friendly justice system, but respondents identify the need for clarity, proportionality, and collaboration in development and implementation.