The impact of legal tech on dispute resolution and legal practice - A Solicitor's perspective

Legal Tech is a wide range of technologies used to deliver legal services which can benefit the legal sector by assisting in meeting the legal needs of consumers and clients, improving access to legal services and the standards of service, and driving efficiencies and competition in the legal sector and the adoption of legal tech is being driven by several factors:

• Increased pressure on law firms to operate efficiently as traditional billing models come under scrutiny
• Reforms in the civil justice system, particularly in the UK, which have positioned technology as a key vehicle for modernisation
• Wider access to digital tools enabling even small firms and pro bono organisations to deliver quality legal services

In summary, legal tech enables law firms and legal service providers to streamline processes, reduce costs, and better meet the needs of clients and consumers—especially in an era where justice must be more accessible and affordable.

The Double-Edged Sword: Benefits and Limitations

Benefits

• Reduced legal costs: Automation and digital workflows cut down on non-billable hours and manual administrative tasks
• Improved efficiency: Tasks like disclosure, case management, and document review are faster and more accurate with tech tools
• Greater access to justice: Especially for low-value claims, legal tech can lower the barrier to entry for individuals seeking redress

Limitations 

• Fewer entry-level opportunities: As automation takes over basic tasks, entry level jobs are not as available as they are more difficult to ‘work the way up’
• Algorithmic bias and lack of human oversight: Automated systems can produce unjust outcomes if not properly supervised
• Ethical risks: There’s a growing concern around AI-generated legal advice, data privacy, and the impersonality of digital-only interactions

Tackling the Justice Gap: Tech and Access to Legal Services

Cuts to Legal Aid under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) and the high costs of litigation have created a significant justice gap in the UK. Increasingly, individuals are turning to technology for help:

• Pro bono services like LawWorks offer support with tech-enhanced case management
•  Legal chatbots such as DoNotPay provide users with assistance on small claims, appeals, and consumer rights issues

However, digital exclusion remains a significant hurdle, especially for older adults, low-income individuals, and those lacking digital literacy. While tech can extend legal access, it must be implemented inclusively to avoid deepening existing inequalities.

Inside the Courts: Digital Transformation in Action

The HMCTS (Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service) reform program has introduced several online platforms aimed at improving dispute resolution. These include:

1. Money Claims Online (MCOL)

• Handles simple money claims up to £100,000
• Not modern or digitally advanced, no real time communication, not user friendly for lay people, no dedicated customer support, no enforcement options

2. Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC)

• Designed for smaller claims under £10,000
• Fully digitalised, with options to resolve disputes without hearings
• Primarily for litigants in person; less user-friendly for legal representatives

3. Possession Claims Online (PCOL)

•  Used by landlords and mortgage lenders seeking property possession
• Excludes certain disputes (e.g., trespass, repairs), lacks mediation options, limited enforcement options, and experiences delays and backlogs

4. Damages Claims Portal (DCP)

• A pilot scheme for personal injury and breach of contract claims
• Only suitable for simple cases; risks procedural errors and has jurisdictional limitations
• Risk of strike out if portal not used at any stage, maximum of 2 parties and not user friendly and risk of strike out from procedural errors amongst others

5. Online Injury Claims (OIC)

• For road traffic accident (RTA) claims up to £5,000 (or £10,000 total)
• Features real-time messaging, but often too complex for self-represented claimants and hard to integrate with broader case systems. Additionally, claims take much longer to conclude

Virtual Hearings

During and after COVID-19, telephone and video hearings became more common. While they enable faster resolution and improve accessibility for remote parties, concerns remain over:

• The fairness of remote testimony procedures
• The assumption of universal access to reliable tech and internet
• Fragmented system rollouts, often forcing cases to go back into traditional channels

Tech and Disclosure in the Digital Age

Under the Civil Procedure (Rule 31), parties must disclose all documents relevant to a case—including electronic ones. Legal tech tools like AI-assisted discovery platforms are now aiding in identifying, reviewing, and producing relevant documents efficiently.

However, poor implementation of these tools can result in:

• Over-disclosure (exposing unnecessary or privileged information).
• Erroneous disclosure, which may affect case outcomes or breach data protection regulations.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) adds another layer of complexity. Firms must ensure compliance, especially when handling personal or sensitive data through third-party platforms or cloud-based services.

Ethical Considerations: Navigating the SRA Code of Conduct

Technology must not override professional ethics. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Code of Conduct outlines several principles that apply directly to legal tech:

Principles 1 & 2: Uphold the Rule of Law and Act with Integrity

•  Lawyers must supervise AI tools to ensure their outputs don’t result in unlawful or unjust outcomes
• Vulnerable clients must not be disadvantaged by tech-based systems
• Automation should not mislead or oversimplify complex legal advice

Principles 3 & 4: Maintain Public Trust and Act in Clients' Best Interests

•  Tech must be secure, unbiased, and reliable
• Overcharging for tech-enabled services can erode public trust
• AI should support, not replace, professional judgment

Principles 5 & 7: Provide Proper Service and Transparency in Fees

• Lawyers cannot evade liability by blaming AI systems for failures

• Innovative billing models should reflect the lower effort of AI-powered work:
  o Subscription models: Clients pay for access rather than time
  o Outcome-based fees: Fees tied to successful resolution
  o Hybrid billing: AI-assisted work billed at reduced rates

Informed consent is key — clients must know when and how AI is being used in their legal matters.

Legal tech is a powerful force for change in dispute resolution, offering real potential to make justice more accessible, efficient, and user-friendly. Sitting in that lecture room listening to Clare, it was interesting to learn about legal tech and dispute resolution from a Solicitor’s perspective, particularly the challenges and limitations they currently face. Additionally, I appreciated hearing Clare re-iterate some of the discussions we’ve had with the students in the lectures and seminars. 

Technology is not a magic wand, it must be implemented thoughtfully, with great consideration for ethical obligations, legal integrity, and the needs of all users including those most at risk of being left behind. As legal professionals, embracing innovation also means remaining vigilant about its limitations. Ultimately, legal tech should be a tool that empowers not replaces sound legal judgment.

Interested in contributing or sharing a relevant case study? Please get in touch. We’re always eager to feature new insights on the Leeds Law School Legal Tech Blog.