Sir Hugh Laddie called last week for the use of webcams in court to improve transparency. But, writes Rupert White, innovations such as this face the continuing problem of a lack of government funding




When Sir Hugh Laddie told the audience at the Society for Computers and Law's annual lecture last week that 'we need a modern legal system for a modern world', the words 'preaching' and 'converted' may have sprung to mind for some of those seated in the room.



But the former High Court judge's plea for the legal system to adopt technologies already seen as normal and useful by the business world had real resonance, because he knows what is needed.



'I'd like to think that most people want a legal system that is accessible, fair, respected, accountable and affordable,' he said. Perhaps most powerful, though, were the words that followed: 'And perhaps a system that actually matches up to the realities of the world we live in.'



Sir Hugh said he did not understand why courts cannot use Skype conferences, mirroring recent Gazette coverage of the success of remote hearings in small claims mediation. 'Why should everyone come to London during a High Court case on a small application to see the judge?' he said.



Sir Hugh addressed the twin issues of making courts more accessible to the public and making trials and litigation more accessible to the parties involved. The Gazette's coverage of his speech leant towards the latter, but his finger was equally pointed at the benefits of exposing the working of the courts to the common man.



'We have paid lip service to the idea of the public administration of justice, but the reality is: who can actually go to see an English court in operation? American tourists, large groups of children and old age pensioners, who have nothing else to do,' he said. 'If we really believe in public access to our courts, the digital world presents us with ready means for providing it.'



The Gazette has written recently about innovators who have tried to have a technical impact on the legal system. Their ideas have not been heavily bespoke or unduly expensive. And they shared some basic tenets: they were meeting the needs that lawyers see every day, and they would help to deliver the legal system in the digital age.



One of those people, Jeremy Barnett, is vice-chairman of the Bar Council's IT panel and visiting professor of law informatics for the Court 21 Project at Leeds University. He recently gave the Gazette an impressive demonstration of the system that his team has been working on for multi-party multimedia conferencing.



'I agree we need a modern legal system for a modern world,' he said of Sir Hugh's comments. 'With new technology, webcasts can be interactive. This allows remote participation, if handled with care. [But] it's more than Skype. You need multi-party video access "on the fly", and common access to documents - that is, a virtual case file.'



But the government has not been beating down Mr Barnett's door. 'Most of the current IT spend is governed by a desire to save money, rather than to improve or modernise the process,' he said.



There are, he said, inherent problems with broadcasting trials. 'You can't dip in and out of a hearing without editing,' explained Mr Barnett. 'This is where the danger lies. Who is going to be responsible for editing the material? We believe it should be the court, with an outsourced back office. The danger is that justice will become a reality TV soap opera.'



Another man who has spent much time and effort getting his web technology-based legal solution in front of the public is solicitor Marlan Higgins. The Gazette covered his frustration as he tried to deliver a webcam-enabled system for giving legal advice to vulnerable people in Oxfordshire last year. Next week, a year later, his Legal Advice Direct project will finally launch.



'I see little point in allowing the public to view judges behaving badly when the same technology is not used to allow a victim of domestic violence to access legal advice or support,' said Mr Higgins. 'To modernise the legal system we must start by modernising and improving the way in which the general public access advice and representation. The government, not the legal profession, must take the lead.'



The government is slowly grinding forward - plans for electronic filing of court documents aim for a workable system in 2009/2010, for example. As one American lawyer and legal IT writer told the Gazette, this is a step in the right direction.



'Short of cameras in the courtroom, a small step comes from electronic filing systems that make most pleadings and the record of proceedings available to the public via the Internet,' said Colorado-based David Masters. 'Electronic filing provides some transparency to the court system - not as transparent as the view through a camera connected to the Internet, but a start nonetheless.'



The real legal technology push is currently taking place in corporate litigation. But if the public, as the ongoing legal reforms suggest, are to be consumers of legal services, Sir Hugh must be right that opening the legal system up with the tools of the digital age is equally important.



Now it just requires the Department for Constitutional Affairs to put its hand in its pocket. As Mr Higgins puts it: 'The general public will not lose sleep over company executives being inconvenienced by having to travel to London in order to sit in court. The public does, however, worry about being unable to access specialist legal help.'