During the recent holiday break, I was preparing an online order to replace an aging mobile phone. I had a few questions, so, with great trepidation, I clicked the button to “Chat Live with Agent.”
As the agent logged on, I prepared myself for an hour-long bureaucratic struggle. But much to my surprise, the agent was prompt, communicated clearly, and completed my transaction in just minutes. My expectations were definitely exceeded.
Returning to work after the New Year, I reviewed a state court strategic plan to expand access to justice. With my surprisingly efficient customer service chat still fresh in my mind, I read with interest the description of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR). Could the same technology used to sell an iPhone possibly be used to resolve a court case? As a court planner, I found ODR intriguing, both as a procedural innovation and also for its potential to affect courthouse space needs.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is certainly not a new concept. Most courts offer some form of ADR or mediation service. We wrote about the potential space savings from ADR nearly a decade ago.
More recently, the balance between larger courtrooms and smaller hearing rooms continues to evolve as part of the hybrid courthouse concept. But ODR is something different.
ODR allows parties in a dispute, perhaps aided by a mediator, to resolve their issues through a public-facing digital platform. This goes beyond paying a traffic fine online or agreeing to a debt payment schedule. It provides the ability to interact in real-time to legally resolve a dispute without appearing in person.
From these and other sources, it seems clear that ODR is in a relatively early adoption phase and is likely to become more widespread. Here are a few benefits likely to contribute to the expanded use of ODR:
Parties involved in a dispute who would otherwise need to travel to a courthouse, potentially at great distance and expense, can resolve their dispute from home or another convenient location. The expanded use of ODR provides a tool to help courts address the issue of legal deserts.
Some judges, mediators, and court staff might specialize in ODR and related processes, enabling them to work remotely. As construction and materials costs continue to soar via inflation, any space-saving opportunities are worth exploring.
From the court’s perspective, judicial and court staff time can be focused on adjudicating cases with higher stakes and more serious charges, leading to greater overall efficiency. In general, streamlining dispute resolution in cases where it makes sense to do so is beneficial for all involved.
As promising as these benefits appear, more widespread adoption of ODR will encounter challenges. Here are some areas of potential issues courts may encounter:
Some residents may lack the financial resources to acquire the technology required for ODR, while others may lack the training and expertise to use the technology. Courts will need to address these issues as part of ODR implementation.
Not only are in-person cues unavailable to online litigants, but the drawbacks of online engagement could also create challenges. As an Internet message board or group chat can demonstrate, context, tone, and nuance can be lost between parties in a discussion, often leading to increasingly harsh rhetoric.
With the continued advance of technology in so many areas of our lives, the expansion of ODR in courts seems more or less inevitable. The opportunity for courts to gain efficiency, reduce space needs, and expand access to justice within their communities is worth pursuing.
As with any wholesale expansion of technology-based services, there will be problems to solve and hurdles to overcome. But over time, ODR can enable courts to save space and focus on the most difficult and labor-intensive parts of their mission while making justice more available and user-friendly for litigants. After all, who wouldn’t want to go to court in their pajamas?