Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

If I am luck I will be able to find the notes I jotted down when attending why first year law degree lectures in 1973/4. I have distinct impression that Tribunals were seen as a way to deal with issues without need for lawyers. I have a further recollection of their being discussions of a more "inquisitorial" style of court for dealing with consumer type issues.
Since then the Tribunals have grown and grown, and their rules have become ever more complex so that legal representation for the parties is more or less commonplace. They have been morphed into HMCTS, and now we see the prospect of the ET becoming "integrated" into the Civil Courts.
How will a new Online Court fare? How will the software be able to identify issues? (Will it be called Veyo?) What is so wrong with people taking advise from experts who know how to lay out the facts so that the issues are easily identified for the court to deal with?
Perhaps lawyers will have to become versed in advising clients how to frame their claims so that the IT system flags up the appropriate issues for determination.
We all have day to day experience of such IT systems which drive the scripts used for so many telephone and internet based transactions. The results are often far from perfect; to put it mildly.
The Law Society might have some unloved software going begging. Does CliamO or SueO sound like a good name for a quick rebranding?

Your details

Cancel