Making Justice Systems More Effective and People Centred

4. People-centred justice pathways and services

Abstract

People-centred justice requires accessible, people-centred pathways and services that match capabilities and deliver fair outcomes. This chapter maps justice pathways, shows how systems should adapt to the people they serve, and reviews initiatives: points of entry and triage in one-stop or embedded settings; self-help and guided assistance; non-lawyer legal services; community-based models; and post-resolution support to enforce outcomes and build resilience. People-centred justice pathways prioritise non-court solutions, promote plain language, simplification, seamless services, and personal contact, and approaches to reach people through different channels and by multidisciplinary teams. The chapter details tailored services for SMEs, children and people with disabilities, including accessibility standards and differentiated SME pathways.  

Introduction

The justice pathways undertaken by people and communities seeking to solve specific justice problems or clusters of problems are the second dimension of the legal empowerment path. At present, people-centred justice is more of a commitment than a reality (Di Giovanni and De Langen, 2024[1]). In many cases, existing justice systems rather tend to prioritise formal processes, which are designed to be used primarily by legal professionals and are optimised for their professional performance.

Justice systems are engaging in a range of practices to meet the legal needs and capabilities of diverse people and communities. For this, it is important to understand the pathways people take (or do not take) to identify the steps and the difficulties they encounter. The central strategy is to facilitate a smooth interface by adapting the system to the capabilities of people, businesses and communities. Justice pathways can be seen as opportunities to contribute to greater general legal capabilities and empowerment that continue to assist beyond the resolution of a specific justice problem. Five types of initiatives are reviewed: facilitating points of entry, self-help and guided assistance, non-lawyer legal assistance, community-based justice, and post-resolution support and follow up.

Empowering justice pathways

Initiating justice pathways

The initial step in a justice journey can be daunting. People may not know where to turn or how to start. Justice institutions are implementing a range of points of entry to facilitate the initiation of people’s justice pathways.

Established and emerging practices take two main approaches: centralising services into a one-stop-shop and putting services in the path of people’s lives by locating them in a range of settings, including online (OECD, 2020[2]). The services provided include initial assessment of a justice problem and potential avenues for resolution, referrals to legal and non-legal assistance, and assistance with navigating institutions and procedures. Point of entry services can play a triage function, guiding people to the most efficient process for their justice problem and towards the desired outcome. A “no wrong number, no wrong door approach” to facilitating the early stage of a justice journey has been demonstrated to be a good practice (OECD, 2021[3]). Co-locating justice triage services in settings where people seek problem-solving assistance, such as homeless shelters, domestic violence shelters, and community-based organisations, is effective and recognises that many justice problems have legal and non-legal components.

Effective point of entry and triage services are supported by collaborative partnerships between legal (e.g. lawyers, paralegals, mediators) and other service providers (social workers, doctors) as this facilitates efficient referrals and minimises the stress and demands on people experiencing justice problems. They help address the referral fatigue that contributes to many people abandoning justice pathways at an early stage. Resources such as legal information targeting different community groups and networks of information providers play an important role in ensuring that relevant information is available when people need it and, in a language, and a form most suitable to them. As such, several OECD countries have implemented the Barnahus model - an interagency service delivery model - to provide joined-up services to children and young people who are victims or witnesses of abuse and violence (OECD, 2023[4]).

Self-help and socio-legal assistance

The pressure on the formal legal system created by unmet legal needs and unresolved justice problems has resulted in many courts and tribunals developing new means to accommodate unrepresented litigants. Legal assistance organisations have developed a range of self-help tools designed to empower people to use systems initially designed for legally trained professionals. Evidence is growing about what types of information are needed and how they should be provided to give people the legal capacity to navigate the justice system on their own. Research has shown that some people have the legal capability to resolve their problems effectively when provided with information alone (Collard et al., 2011[5]). One key determining variable is the complexity of the legal matter (Collard et al., 2011[5]). Furthermore, effective self-help, guided help, and online help processes are empowering and preferred by some people. Conversely, there is also growing data about the type of cases where self-help is insufficient: “The weight of research makes it clear that self-help and similar resources are not the most appropriate solution – or even a solution at all – for many people seeking to resolve legal issues” (McDonald and Wei, 2019[6]), p. 61). Self-help is one solution, but it shouldn’t be applied to all cases and the empirical understanding of when it can and cannot work is growing.

Guided assistance is being offered on a for-profit basis by the private sector (as well as pro bono in limited cases) as well as by public programs. This model is working well in the context of some administrative tribunals and as an alternative to small claims courts for civil disputes. Canada’s Social Security Tribunal allows for online appeals of decisions relating to four social benefit regimes (Social Security Tribunal of Canada, n.d.[7]). The EU’s framework of alternative dispute resolution for consumers requires online marketplaces and EU trade associations to provide simplified dispute resolution systems that include automated decision-making (European Parliament, 2023[8]).

There is no one-size-fits-all answer to the question of where to draw the line between when people can manage their justice journey on their own and when expert assistance is required. Neither justice systems nor legal needs and capabilities are static. Problem-solving processes can be re-designed to facilitate direct access by justice seekers for some categories of justice problems and a person’s legal capabilities can be enhanced through empowerment measures built into the process. People-centred simplification of government forms, processes, and language is one key to improving direct access. Alternative dispute resolution processes are inherently flexible and in situations of relative power balance, the mediator or other third party can work effectively where both parties are unrepresented. In many countries, administrative tribunals have the power to reshape their processes to empower people to pursue their claims and defences. This can include more active forms of judging in which the adjudicator helps parties to shape their evidentiary and legal case.

Lawyerless legal services

People-centred simplification of justice problem resolution processes will be insufficient to ensure all people can proceed solo on their justice journey and have an equal opportunity to gain a fair outcome. A responsive rule of law considers that many people will need to be empowered by tailored advice and personal assistance. The need for assistance can arise from the complexity of the issue and the problem resolution process, and from limitations arising from the person’s situation, literacy level, attitude, and practical legal literacy. These types of challenges can be compounded by poverty, trauma, and the mental exhaustion and stigma arising from or associated with the justice problem and the justice journey (Legal Aid Interagency Roundtable, 2023[9])

In many situations, the provision of legal assistance by non-lawyers, or to use Burnett and Sandefur’s terminology “lawyerless legal services”, is the key to legal empowerment (Burnett and Sandefur, 2024[10]). Two large-scale reviews of paralegal assistance have demonstrated the effectiveness of this strategy in assisting people and communities to achieve effective resolution of a range of justice problems in different justice contexts (Goodwin and Maru, 2017[11]) (Mathews and Wiseman, 2022[12]). Rigorous assessments of non-lawyer legal advice in England and Wales concluded that specialist advisors can be as effective as, and in some cases more effective than, fully-qualified lawyers in assisting people with their civil justice issues (Legal Services Consumer Panel, 2011[13]); (Moorhead, Sherr and Paterson, 2003[14]). A Canadian study posits several factors that contribute to this greater effectiveness: clients are more likely to speak to non-lawyer advocates about their justice problems, which allows advocates to offer better quality assistance, and advocates have greater compassion and sensitivity for client circumstances (Mathews and Wiseman, 2022[12]). It concludes that advocates are less likely to use technical language and are more approachable and flexible (Mathews and Wiseman, 2022[12]).

Another example is community paralegal and community advice offices in South Africa, where these offices have been part of the social and political landscape, including the struggle against Apartheid, since at least the 1930s (Dugard and Drage, 2013[15]). The United Kingdom has a well-established national network of Citizens Advice offices staffed by trained volunteers who provide advice and information about a range of legal issues of everyday life, including benefits, employment, family, debt, housing, health, and immigration (Citizens Advice, 2022[16]). In several Canadian jurisdictions, community legal workers have been active since the 1970s - in the province of Ontario, the legal regulator formally recognised independent paralegals and currently licenses nearly 10,000 individuals (Mathews and Wiseman, 2022[12]). In Indonesia, paralegals have established networks and alliances with organisations such as trade unions and universities and with individual lawyers when necessary. In Zambia, a review of collaborative efforts led by paralegals concluded that their success in addressing justice problems is due to their willingness to “pursue remedies everywhere,” looking beyond courts to “administrative agencies, local governments, accountability bodies like ombuds institutes and human rights commissions, parliaments, customary justice institutions, and others” (Ward Berenschot and Taufik Rinaldi, 2018[17]). The justice system includes informal community-based legal assistants as well as paralegals who are formally recognised in many countries, often through legal aid regulations, and granted varying levels of independence and scope of work.

There is evidence that appropriate lawyerless legal services can produce just outcomes, and that they have the potential to scale. In Ireland for instance, the Ombudsman for Children has created “child-friendly accessible leaflets for children on how they can make complaints” (Mental Disability Advocacy Center, 2015[18]). While law clinics originated in the USA, they have gained traction in Europe too. In Germany, clinics such as the Humboldt Law Clinics have expanded beyond the first Basic Rights and Human Rights clinic to provide services in Consumer Law, Internet Law, and Refugee Law (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 2022[19]). These clinics are not necessarily staffed by lawyers, and often services are provided by volunteers and law students (Humboldt Law Clinic Grund- und Menschenrechte, 2025[20]). Another successful initiative is Norway’s Conflict Councils (Konfliktråd) which provide mediation and conflict resolution services free of charge in every municipality across the country via 500 trained volunteer mediators (Schonewille and Schonewille, 2014[21]). These councils handle a wide range of disputes, including civil and minor criminal cases, helping parties reach binding agreements without court involvement (Schonewille and Schonewille, 2014[21]).

Community-based alternatives

Community-based alternatives, such as community justice centres, provide holistic empowerment services to people and communities. These centres operate differently in each community but share core values and approaches. Their objective is to provide more accessible and affordable justice services in local regions and to facilitate greater community input on priorities and services. HiiL identifies four core values these organisations share: informal justice, high quality and standardisation, recourse to or supervision by formal courts, and likely to remain donor-funded or supported by the public sector (HiiL, 2021[22]).

Box 4.1. Providing community- based justice services

Argentina: Enhancing accessibility of justice services through Access to Justice Centres

Under the Federal Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, Argentina established a network of Access to Justice Centres (Centros de Acceso a la Justicia) to enhance accessibility of justice services in communities and contribute to equal access to justice (Maurino, 2020[23]). Close to a hundred centres operated in small offices, often located in low-income neighbourhoods and remote locations, assisting almost half a million people a year. The centres use a multidisciplinary approach, bringing together lawyers, social workers, and psychologists to address both legal and non-legal aspects of people’s problems. This integrated approach recognises the intersection between legal challenges and broader social and psychological issues. Services include assistance with civil documentation, family and housing issues, financial insecurity, and mental health concerns.

Evaluations of the Argentina model have been positive and national and local policies continue to evolve to strengthen access to justice. While challenges persist, such as coordinating professionals with differing codes of ethics and ensuring sustainable funding, the community-based, multidisciplinary approach has demonstrated potential to deliver holistic, and in some cases, “life-altering help” (Maurino, 2020[23]).

Colombia: Bridging the access to justice gap in rural areas through Local Justice Systems

Colombia has developed a strong community-based network of Local Justice Systems (LJS) that effectively deliver services to rural populations experiencing justice problems in 1100 municipalities. The LJS operate as a network where existing state bodies, private entities, and community authorities provide coordinated solutions to uphold rights and manage conflicts (Ardila and Ospina, 2024[24]). The work is carried out systemically, starting with analysing justice problems in their territories, identifying and responding to local needs, and tailoring their efforts to each area’s unique conditions.

Initially developed in communities to fill gaps in access to justice, the LJS have become formally established and have begun to coordinate efforts across municipalities and with the national government (Ardila and Ospina, 2024[24]). The LJS are now part of Colombia’s national Ten-Year Justice Plan (2017-2027), in turn based on, and updated according to, the evidence gathered by Legal Needs Surveys conducted in Colombia (2016, 2020, and 2022).

Zambia: Using legal aid to strengthen the rule of law

In Zambia, the Enabling Access to Justice, Civil Society Participation and Transparency (EnACT) programme (2021–2026) established Legal Help Desks in local courts, police stations, correctional facilities, Legal Service Units, and community sites (Schuenemann, 2023[25]). These desks are staffed by paralegals - trained legal-aid assistants who provide basic legal information, advice and referrals at little or no cost, making legal aid available to people who cannot reach or afford a lawyer.

By mid-2024 EnACT supported 116 Legal Help Desks run by 256 paralegals or legal-aid assistants. Between August 2021 and December 2024, the desks assisted over 122,000 people including 34,000 women, 14,000 children, and 1,500 persons with disabilities. Service quality improved through training of 73 paralegals and refresher trainings for 120 paralegals and legal-aid staff. These results crystallised a people-centred model: local access points, trained front-line staff, shared data tools, and common training standards across state and non-state actors.

Following Zambia’s 2021 Legal Aid Act, EnACT shifted from piloting to institutionalisation. The Legal Aid Board (LAB) has begun integrating legal aid units into its structure and budgeting for new Legal Service Units. The programme is advocating to include paralegals in LAB staffing to secure funding for desks in correctional facilities and police stations. To sustain and standardize the model, national-level Memorandums of Understanding between LAB and the Judiciary, Police, Correctional Service and CSOs are under review.

A review of the Ontario experience with community justice centres concludes that their effectiveness lies in “the assistance being available from helpers who are skilled in understanding and engaging the challenging social context of people living on low incomes or otherwise experiencing marginalization” (Mathews and Wiseman, 2022[12]). Community-based service providers are more likely to respect the views of people and communities about the outcomes they wish to achieve. Lawyers are trained to assist their clients to understand the range of reasonable legal outcomes to a justice problem and to work toward that end. Many people may seek outcomes that require multi-faceted responses, including through non-legal avenues, or may seek outcomes that are different from their legal entitlement. Lawyers and non-lawyer advocates working in community settings have the training and disposition to work with people on the basis of their desired outcomes, while maintaining their professionalism and continuing to serve their client’s interest.

Prioritising non-court solutions

In many cases, adversarial court procedures tend not to be the most effective means of resolving justice problems, since they may escalate conflict, heighten emotions and stress, promote a win-lose mindset, and may be unable to address underlying or connected issues. In this regard, a broader range of justice services, including alternative dispute resolution, mediation, and restorative justice approaches, could be relevant to achieve positive outcomes. Different justice professionals with a range of skills can work together to resolve problems at the earliest possible stage and with the lowest cost to the parties involved and to society.

Providing more accessible, timely, and cost-effective avenues for resolving disputes can alleviate pressure on overloaded court systems and promote greater efficiency and fairness in the resolution of justice problems. Governments can support the development of ADR infrastructure, provide training and accreditation for mediators and arbitrators, and raise awareness among the public about the benefits of these approaches. Integrating ADR processes into formal legal frameworks and incentivising their use through legislation or policy incentives can further encourage their adoption and uptake.

The 2023 Recommendation reflects this broad understanding, defining legal and justice services as “the spectrum of in-person, online or hybrid judicial and nonjudicial services offering individuals and businesses 1) support in the form of legal information, advice, resources and representation, and 2) formal or informal mechanisms to resolve their dispute or address their legal needs, including alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms that enable out of court settlements and schemes that support prevention and de-escalation” (OECD, 2023[26]).

Non-court solutions can benefit all parts of the justice system. Reforming Denver’s police complaints system to encourage mediation between parties, for example, has helped speed up the resolution of grievances, increase the satisfaction rates of both complainants and police officers, and reduce the police force’s complaints workload (Riley, 2020[27]). Also in the US, the Matterhorn platform allows for online payment of fines and fees as well as online negotiation over fines between citizens and judges, prosecutors and the police (Prescott, 2017[28]). A study of the platform’s effectiveness found that those who used it were significantly less likely to default on payments and that their cases were resolved much more quickly (Prescott, 2017[28]). This increased the revenues of courts and reduced the time they spent on cases (Prescott, 2017[28]).

Empowerment beyond resolution

What happens after people, businesses and communities engage with the justice system and resolve their justice problem can build legal empowerment, reinforce the rule of law, and build trust in the justice system. The post-resolution phase can contribute to promotion of the rule of law and to social cohesion on a longer time horizon. At this stage, the focus is on post-resolution support and building resilience.

People and communities will often require assistance with enforcement of the negotiated outcome or legal decision to ensure they receive the intended benefits. A failure at this step in the process will erode trust and confidence in the justice system. Good practices include taking steps to ensure that the non-legal aspects of the justice problem have been addressed. People-centred justice is outcomes-based, which should extend the conception of justice pathways to post-resolution check-ins and follow-up contacts, to evaluate outcomes and their impact, and to ascertain whether there has been a recurrence of problems or knock-on effects.

The post-resolution phase is an opportunity to focus on building capability by fostering resilience and enhancing people’s capacity to prevent future problems. Each justice journey is not only an opportunity to address an identified justice problem but to build lasting legal empowerment. Resilience will be enhanced by a positive experience with the justice system, including one that respectfully engages with people and communities. Resilience can be enhanced by assistance services that contribute to skills development such as conflict management and conflict de-escalation skills.

Bringing justice services closer to people

Using plain language

In times of growing distrust and disengagement, using plain language and communicating effectively are critical for the relationship between people and institutions. Across OECD countries, on average 18% of adults do not have the most basic levels of proficiency in the areas of literacy, numeracy and adaptive problem-solving proficiency (OECD, 2024[29]). These people may have difficulties to understand legal terms. In this regard, it is critical for public institutions in general and justice service in particular to make greater efforts to use plain language in their communications and to make information more easily available and understandable.

The 2023 Recommendation on Access to Justice and People-Centred Justice Systems indicates that countries should ensure that legal, justice, and related services are “provided in clear, plain and inclusive language and manner, avoiding complexity” (OECD, 2023[26]). Additionally, it emphasises the need to empower people and improve their legal literacy, including their capacity to manage their own legal matters and disputes, where appropriate, via legal education, effective communication strategies, and multi-sectoral collaboration and outreach (OECD, 2023[26]). Regarding the judiciary, the 2015 CEPEJ good practice guide on enforcement of judicial decisions emphasizes the importance of using “language that can be easily understood by everyone” (CEPEJ, 2015[30]). In the Netherlands judiciary, for example, the official norm for clear language is the B1 level, and since 2017 an annual prize has been awarded to the court that has published the best verdict in terms of clear language and comprehensibility (De Rechtspraak, 2022[31]) (Nederlanse Juristen Vereniging, 2023[32]).

The challenge many organisations face is that following through on the commitment to plain language in all correspondence is a large-scale, technical exercise. It requires commitment, resources, systematic review of all outgoing correspondence, website texts and other written publications, as well as monitoring of implementation. Systematic tracking of user experiences can create a feedback loop to ensure continuous learning and improvement. Simplifying complex forms or communications and explaining legal concepts in plain language may be an area where artificial intelligence can provide value (Cooney, 2023[33]).

Box 4.2. Using AI to deliver information in accessible and plain language

i-ACCESS My Rights project: Chatbot supports child victims with tailored and accessible legal information

The i-ACCESS My Rights project, implemented in Greece, Bulgaria and Romania, provides age-appropriate and easy-to-understand legal information to children aged 13–18, especially those who have experienced abuse or crime. Through a child-friendly chatbot, the project offers clear, plain-language explanations of legal rights and procedures, as well as guidance on how to access available support services. This empowers young victims to understand their rights and navigate the justice system with greater confidence.

The chatbot was co-designed with children, including those with lived experience in the justice system. Through participatory sessions and Child Advisory Boards in each country, children helped shape the content and tone of the tool to ensure that it is relevant, understandable, and responsive to their needs. By involving young users in the development process, the project ensures that legal information is not only technically accurate but accessible and meaningful.

Spain: Improving document accessibility in Spain

The Ministry of the Presidency, Justice and Parliamentary Relations of Spain has developed an in-house suite of Natural Language Processing and generative AI tools to support efficient management and processing of judicial documents. A standout feature is the tool’s plain language summarisation, which transforms complex legal documents (e.g. rulings, orders) into clear, concise, and easily understandable summaries. This helps make judicial information accessible to a non-expert audience, including litigants and the general public. Future enhancements will include document generation adapted for special needs and multilingual translation, allowing people to access justice information in Spain’s official languages in a clear and inclusive way.

The AI tools are available through a secure portal for justice personnel, and via the Justice Folder, Spain’s citizen-facing one-stop-shop for legal information. Through this platform, users can access plain language summaries and anonymised case files, reducing reliance on intermediaries and helping people engage with the justice system directly.

Source: (OECD, 2025[34]).

Simplification and seamless services

The vast majority of people who experience a justice problem in their lives do not seek formal adjudication and many do not take any action at all. They may not know that their problem has legal dimensions, may not know where to turn, or may believe the justice journey will be too complex and cumbersome. One study, for example, found that 4% of Australians did nothing to resolve their justice problem (Balmer et al., 2023[35]). The primary reason people gave for not obtaining information or advice was that they “either didn’t know where to get advice, couldn’t find advice or found advisors too difficult to access” (Balmer et al., 2023[35]). Others indicated it was too stressful or they were too ashamed to ask for help (Balmer et al., 2023[35]) .

The 2023 Recommendation highlights the importance of providing an accessible and high-quality continuum of legal and justice services. This requires developing and implementing the legal and policy frameworks that are necessary to enable seamless, efficient, integrated, sustainable, resilient, and user-centred justice pathways, while fostering innovation and experimentation to enhance their simplicity, effectiveness, efficiency, and scalability (OECD, 2023[26]).

This goes hand in hand with efforts by many OECD member and partner countries to reduce unnecessary administrative burdens associated with laws and regulations (OECD, 2025[36]) which add layers of complexity to user journeys when trying to access public services. Unnecessarily complex rules and processes cost people significant time and energy (Herd P., Moynihan D., 2018[37]) which leaves them feeling angry and frustrated. There are additional psychological costs of stress and the perceived loss of power or autonomy vis-à-vis the state (Moynihan, D., P. Herd and H. Harvey, 2014[38]). Modernising and simplifying rules can reduce time and money spent (OECD, 2025[36]) as well as psychological impacts and frustrations (OECD, 2024[39]), while increasing certainty and transparency, and improving trust in government.

As underlined by the OECD Recommendation on Human-Centred Public Administrative Services, public institutions need to make efforts to understand the journey of users and non-users when they have a legal need or justice problem and file a complaint (OECD, 2024[40]). Mapping their journey, identifying the information sources they use, their entry point to the justice system and the difficulties they face at different steps of the process can help justice system and services evolve. Several OECD Member countries have used life event approaches to measure citizen use and satisfaction with those services and identify the key measures and procedures to adjust (OECD, 2025[41]).

For instance, Portugal’s justice sector has embraced a multi-year approach to providing a seamless justice experience under its Justiça mais próxima (Bringing Justice Closer) and subsequent programmes (A Justica Esta A Avancar Para Todos, 2024[42]). This reviews justice processes from the perspective of the user and aims to simplify people’s justice pathways by adapting ways of working, communications, and more. Adopting the perspective of the user in designing services is a core part of what has become known as “Legal Design”, the purpose of which is “to develop a human-centred, participatory approach to reforming the legal system” and which “weaves together design of documents, products, services, spaces, policies and laws” while paying close attention to “front-line realities” (Hagan, 2020[43]).

Developing seamless services requires different providers of justice services to collaborate across the boundaries of their own institutions and mandates, working together to improve people’s justice pathways. This requires proper data governance that enable data to be shared safely, ethically and effectively. In the health sector, such collaboration between different providers, each with their own roles and responsibilities, is shaped through well-established protocols for cooperation, including on sharing of information, rapid escalation when necessary, joint assessment of results, and systematic evidence-based practice to improve outcomes.

Personal contact

When it comes to finding a solution to their justice problem, most people prefer personal contact, be it in-person or over the phone, to written exchanges (Community Advocacy and Legal Centre, 2011[44]). Justice services, however, typically rely on written documents and exchanges. Many public sector entities have made personal contact increasingly difficult, including due to the rise of digital technologies, even though direct personal exchanges can lead to more flexible and faster problem-solving (Steven et al., 2021[45]). Research in the Netherlands has shown that reaching out by phone before sending out written communications significantly reduces the number of appeals procedures (Van den Bos, 2014[46]).

Moments where citizens and justice providers interact directly have long been seen as problematic from organisations’ point of view (Bartels, 2013[47]). Yet there is a growing recognition that these interactions can be “an asset for creative, deliberative, and informed judgement”, elements critical to resolving justice problems (Vinzant, 1996[48]). The successes achieved via ADR and mediation in many countries are a further testament to the fact that personal contact is effective in finding durable solutions to justice problems.

Reaching people where they are

A visible and measurable element of access to justice is the geographical distance between people and justice services. With the reduction and centralisation of courts in many OECD countries over the past two decades, justice expertise and related services have also become more concentrated and often harder to reach. The 2023 Recommendation stresses the need to ensure that justice is within reach for everyone, regardless of their geographical location, including in rural and remote areas (OECD, 2023[26]).

This challenge is not the same for all countries. Countries composed of many islands, such as Indonesia or the Bahamas, and those with hard-to-access regions, extreme climates or large sparsely populated areas will have to invest more to reach everyone. A wide variety of mobile or itinerant justice services has been developed around the world, including the Rural Mobile Law Van in Canada (Currie, 2023[49]) and legal clinics targeting rural and remote areas in Alaska (Alaska Legal Services Corporation, n.d.[50]), Argentina (Maurino, 2020[23]), and the Netherlands (Samen Recht Vinden, n.d.[51]). These services share the conviction that it is important to reach people where they are.

Reaching people where they are is not only a spatial issue, however. It is connected to offering a context that is familiar and safe and being available on days and times that work for people. Setting up access to justice centres high in the Andes, for example, gave people in the north of Argentina the sense of belonging to the national state and of being a citizen with rights for the first time in 500 years (Maurino, 2020[23]).

Multidisciplinary service delivery

Recognising that justice problems are often intertwined with other problems in people’s lives, many providers of justice services have chosen to create multidisciplinary teams, where lawyers or paralegals work alongside social workers, psychologists, health care providers, debt counsellors, housing officials, and others. Such interdisciplinary collaboration leverages the strengths of different actors who have complementary professional skill sets. The 2023 Recommendation recognises that the justice system is composed of a range of actors and that those who provide social services or medical care, for example, can contribute to legal empowerment (OECD, 2023[26]).

Holistic services are not new and over the past decades multidisciplinary service delivery has been a core part, for example, of the problem-solving courts approach, which was developed primarily for drug-related criminal cases and family cases (HiiL, 2021[52]). Legal clinics, citizen advice services, and other community justice services typically draw on a workforce that is composed of lawyers as well as social workers, psychologists, grief counsellors, and administrative staff (Maurino, 2020[23]).

Health-justice partnerships have been developed successfully in countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom (Tobin-Tyler, 2023[53]). They typically include collaborations of lawyers with doctors, nurses, social workers and other health care providers, taking a holistic approach to resolve people’s justice problems and help them to access rights and services related to their health. In the Netherlands, general practitioners began proactively asking patients about financial difficulties when they consulted for medical or stress-relates issues (Verwey-Jonker Instituut, 2023[54]). This pilot showed that addressing financial stress early not only supports patients more holistically but also reduces long-term pressures on healthcare services (Verwey-Jonker Instituut, 2023[54]).

Health-justice partnerships include collaborations with policymakers, helping prevent justice problems by identifying and addressing upstream legal and policy issues that contribute to health inequities. Such interdisciplinary collaboration helps to address health issues that may be intertwined with legal and social problems, provide support to those groups who find it hardest to access justice, and identify systemic issues and advocate for policies to address them (Tobin-Tyler, 2023[53]).

A further example of a successful multidisciplinary programme is provided by Peru’s Women’s Justice Centres (WJCs) (Weston, 2022[55]). Staffed mainly by women, these aim to reduce violence against women and girls by offering police, medical, and legal services under one roof. They have led to a 40% increase in the rate at which gender-based crimes are reported and a 10% decline in gender-based violence, including femicide (Weston, 2022[55]). In New York, meanwhile, “holistic defence services”, wherein the lawyers of those accused of crimes collaborate with social workers, immigration services, families, and others to develop a holistic response to the charges has reduced the length of time clients spend in custody and delivered large cost-savings to government (Anderson, 2019[56]).

Services for specific groups

Justice services are increasingly tailored to the realities of diverse groups, including small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), people with disabilities, and children. Governments are redesigning their public services around life events of citizens and firms, including those related to access to justice, to make them more human-centered (OECD, 2024[40]). This helps understand, assess and map the experience of users (or non-users) and redesign and enhance the journey of users across public administrations and players of the justice system. Continued measurement of services’ performance and the introduction of feedback and learning loops, will allow them to better reflect people’s changing needs.

Tailored justice services for SMEs

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) make up approximately 99% of all firms in OECD countries and are a key engine of employment, innovation, and economic growth (OECD, 2025[57]). When considering services for SMEs, however, it is important to recognise that SMEs are not all the same. Medium-sized enterprises have legal requirements and needs that differ from those of large corporations and microenterprises (OECD, 2025[57]). A tech start-up classified as a microenterprise will have very different characteristics and objectives compared to a small, family-owned retail shop. These discrepancies thus engender different types of legal service needs pertaining to the various organisation and management models and evident in the accessibility and navigation of “commercial registers, intellectual property registers, land or property registers, and some business laws” (OECD, 2025[57]).

SMEs face additional challenges compared to large firms in terms of navigating legal and regulatory systems due to limited internal resources, lack of in-house expertise, and fewer opportunities to influence policymaking. Unlike large corporations, SMEs often cannot as easily weather the costs of complex compliance requirements or prolonged disputes. Therefore, justice systems must be designed with an understanding of the varying characteristics of SMEs, offering differentiated services that address the specific legal needs of diverse business types.

Accessible, affordable, and user-centred legal services are therefore essential for SMEs to thrive, particularly in precarious economic conditions, given that SMEs are more vulnerable to external shocks, such as inflation and energy crises, in which legal uncertainty can amplify their risks. Specifically, unresolved legal issues ranging from contractual disputes with suppliers and customers to challenges with employment law or access to finance can lead to income loss, reputational damage, and even closure (OECD, 2025[57]). Therefore, a well-functioning justice system ensures enforceable contracts, transparency, and effective dispute resolution, all of which support long-term business confidence and investment. Simplified legal processes, such as small claims procedures, specific courts for SMEs, SME-oriented ombuds institute services, and accessible specialised mediation and arbitration mechanisms, as is currently implemented in France, can reduce the burden on SMEs and enhance their ability to resolve conflicts efficiently (OECD, 2025[57]). In 2019, France introduced a simplified judicial liquidation procedure for the smallest businesses, which allows the procedure to be completed within a very short time frame. This is in line with the need for justice services that reflect the lifecycle of business needs, from start-up registration to intellectual property protection and restructuring, with clear, timely, and proportionate pathways to resolution.

Beyond formal justice pathways, SMEs may benefit from non-legal recourse. Advisory and/or administrative support can often provide more prompt, efficient, and appropriate solutions. This preventative, guidance-based approach is especially crucial in navigating services such as commercial and land registers, which many SMEs and in particular, start-ups, find challenging. Prioritising corrective support and accessible information over punitive measures for inadvertent errors fosters compliance without imposing unnecessary burdens. Thus, sanctioning firms for honest mistakes not only increases costs and causes administrative delays, but it fails to improve long-term engagement with legal processes. Initiatives like Latvia’s “Consult First” model exemplify the merits of a cooperative, advice-first regulatory framework - one that strengthens trust, facilitates regulatory effectiveness, and supports a more business-centred approach to justice (OECD, 2025[57]).

Lastly, digital transformation presents a major opportunity for SMEs in fulfilling their legal service needs. Online platforms, one-stop-shop portals, and automated processes can streamline business registration, licensing, and dispute resolution, while reducing compliance costs and processing times. Technologies like online dispute resolution (ODR), digital case management, and digital identity services are particularly valuable for SMEs that lack the resources to engage in traditional litigation. Digital identity also reduces exposure to identity fraud, thereby preventing legal disputes (Centre for Finance Innovation and Technology, 2025[58]). However, it is essential that these solutions are implemented while respecting transparency, data protection, and inclusion, thereby ensuring accessibility across language, literacy, and technical capability barriers, and that they are underpinned by a human-centred design (OECD, 2023[59]). Furthermore, as propounded by the EU Commission Expert Group report on policymaking, policymakers should apply principles such as “Think Small First” and thus conduct SME-specific regulatory impact assessments to ensure new rules and systems do not inadvertently disadvantage smaller firms (OECD, 2025[57]). Collecting empirical data on SMEs’ justice needs and building feedback mechanisms into legal services design will help governments ensure that reforms are grounded in real-world business conditions and support equitable access to justice.

Justice services for children and young people

Children face particular challenges in accessing justice, especially those who are in vulnerable situations and those with special needs. Justice problems in the lives of their parents, caregivers or other important adults can impact children directly or indirectly, especially when these problems are prolonged or remain unresolved. This can exacerbate exclusion, perpetuate cycles of inequality, poverty and marginalization and undermine their trust in institutions and engagement with democracy. As such, increasing justice for children is part of preventive law and justice.

The OECD Child-Friendly Justice Framework applies the framework and components of the 2023 Recommendation to the situation of children and youth, based on an analysis of children’s legal needs and justice problems and the barriers they face when interacting with the justice system. It outlines elements of a government-wide strategy to strengthen child-friendly justice practices and aims to provide guidance and good practice examples to help countries align with international standards and obligations in children’s rights (OECD, 2023[60]).

An example of a child-friendly justice service is Iceland’s Barnahus programme, which has since been adopted by multiple European countries (Barnahus Network, n.d.[61]). This is a “one-stop shop” for children who are victims or witnesses of violence and aims to provide them with a welcoming and calm environment that understands and responds to their needs. A multidisciplinary scheme, it involves the cooperation under one roof of child protection service providers, medical and mental health workers, the police, prosecutors, and social service providers, who work together to assess a child’s holistic needs and develop follow-up strategies. The Barnahus Quality Standards have been developed to provide a practical framework for countries considering implementing the model (Barnahus Network, n.d.[61]).

Justice services for people with disabilities

Justice services, both in formal legal systems and informal resolution mechanisms, generally do not match the capabilities and needs of people with disabilities, and they encounter distinct and pervasive difficulties in accessing justice and resolving the justice problems they face. At the same time they are disproportionately impacted by criminal and civil justice problems, particularly in relation to employment discrimination and poor working conditions, access to healthcare, and disputes over disability benefits (Plouin M et al, 2021[62]) (Office for Access to Justice, n.d.[63]). In the US, “the rate of violent crime against persons with disabilities is four times the rate for individuals without disabilities” thus engendering justice problems with few accommodations in facilitating legal recourse (Office for Access to Justice, n.d.[63]). Moreover, several countries, including Italy, either lack clear legal definitions of disability or the legal landscape is complex and fragmented (OECD, 2023[64]). Finally, courts and administrative agencies often do not collect data on disability, which impedes the ability to identify problems and to fashion equitable solutions (Office for Access to Justice, n.d.[63]).

There is little empirical research on the experiences of people with disabilities when navigating legal systems and processes, but efforts have been made to improve access to justice for people with disabilities by bringing together various stakeholders and conducting focus groups with people with disabilities that emphasise lived experiences (Office for Access to Justice, n.d.[63]). Malta, for example, is making its justice system more people-centred and has included a particular focus on reforms needed to ensure meaningful access to justice for people with disabilities. Most efforts have been in advancing inter-institutional data collection, making legal jargon simpler and providing technological accommodations for various disabilities. The OECD working paper on Using AI to Support People with Disability in the Labour Market: Opportunities and Challenges envisions AI to have a facilitative role that has the potential to create more inclusive and accommodating environments and might help remove some of these barriers (Touzet, 2023[65]).

Furthermore, the adoption of people-centred design principles - emphasizing flexibility, simplicity, and tolerance for error, has been promoted not only as a means to meet legal obligations but to foster a culture of genuine accessibility within judicial institutions (Office for Access to Justice, n.d.[63]). A comprehensive modernization framework developed by the Pew Charitable Trusts underscores the role of various justice actors, including judges, clerks, access-to-justice staff, self-help centres, IT personnel, researchers, and community partners, in creating an inclusive environment (The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2024[66]). This involves actions ranging from training and interpreter coordination to the development of accessible forms, user-tested websites, and feedback mechanisms (The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2024[66]). Similar efforts have been made by the Mental Disability Advocacy Centre which calls for extensive training of justice officials when representing children with mental disabilities so that they will recognise the rights of the child and know how to promote them (Mental Disability Advocacy Center, 2015[18]).

Collectively, these initiatives reflect a growing recognition that access to justice for people with disabilities requires a holistic, participatory, and adaptive approach that integrates policy, practice, and technology.

References

[42] A Justica Esta A Avancar Para Todos (2024), Justice Digital Transformation: Two years of the Recovery and Resilience Plan.

[50] Alaska Legal Services Corporation (n.d.), Alaska Legal Services Corporation, https://www.alsc-law.org/.

[56] Anderson, J. (2019), “The Effects of Holistic Defense on Criminal Justice Outcomes”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 132/819.

[24] Ardila, E. and L. Ospina (2024), Local Justice Systems in Colombia: The Road to Collaborative Justice that Prioritizes People.

[35] Balmer, N. et al. (2023), The Public Understanding of Law Survey (PULS) Volume 1: Everday Problems and Legal Need.

[61] Barnahus Network (n.d.), About Barnahus, https://www.barnahus.eu/en/about-barnahus/.

[47] Bartels, K. (2013), “Public Encounters: The History and Future of Face-to-face contact between Public Professionals and Citizens”, Public Admin, Vol. 91, pp. 469-483.

[10] Burnett, M. and R. Sandefur (2024), “Designing Just Solutions at Scale: Lawyerless Legal Services and Evidence-Based Regulation”, Direito Público.

[58] Centre for Finance Innovation and Technology (2025), Fighting Economic Crime Through Digital Verification, https://cfit.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/CFIT-Blueprint-Report-March-2025-Final.pdf.

[30] CEPEJ (2015), Good practice guide on enforcement of judicial decisions, European Commission.

[16] Citizens Advice (2022), “Consumer”, https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/policy/consumer/.

[5] Collard, S. et al. (2011), Public Legal Education Evaluation Framework.

[44] Community Advocacy and Legal Centre (2011), Paths to Justice: Navigating with the Wandering Lost Providing Access to Justice in Rural and Linguistic Minority Communities in South-Eastern Ontario.

[33] Cooney, M. (2023), “Teaching AI to use plain language”, Michigan Bar Journal.

[49] Currie, A. (2023), “You have to find them first and that’s a people-centered process: Learning about people-centered justice through the rural mobile law van”, Canadian Forum on Civil Justice.

[31] De Rechtspraak (2022), Juryrapport Klare Taalbokaal 2022-2023.

[1] Di Giovanni, A. and M. De Langen (2024), “People-Centered Justice in International Assistance: Rule-of-Law Path Dependencies or New Paths to Justice for All?”, Canadian Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 39/1, pp. 383-403.

[15] Dugard, J. and K. Drage (2013), “To Whom Do the People Take Their Issues?” The Contribution of Community-Based Paralegals to Access to Justice in South Africa, World Bank.

[8] European Parliament (2023), Alternative dispute resolution for consumers.

[11] Goodwin, L. and V. Maru (2017), “What do we Know about Legal Empowerment? Mapping the Evidence”, Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, Vol. 9, pp. 157 - 194.

[43] Hagan, M. (2020), “Legal Design as a Thing: A Theory of Change and a Set of Methods to Craft a Human-Centered Legal System”, DesignIssues, Vol. 36/3, pp. 3-15.

[37] Herd P., Moynihan D. (2018), Administrative Burden: Policymaking by Other Means, Russell Sage Foundation, https://anzsog.edu.au/app/uploads/2022/06/Administrative-Burden-Policy-Making-by-Other-Means.pdf.

[22] HiiL (2021), “The Game-Changers Dashboard“, https://dashboard.hiil.org/the-gamechangers/.

[52] HiiL (2021), Delivering Justice Rigorously, HIIL.

[20] Humboldt Law Clinic Grund- und Menschenrechte (2025), Bewerbung fuer den 16. Zyklus.

[19] Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (2022), Humboldt Law Clinic.

[9] Legal Aid Interagency Roundtable (2023), Access to Justice in Federal Administrative Proceedings Nonlawyer Assistance and Other Strategies.

[13] Legal Services Consumer Panel (2011), Consumer Impact Report 2011.

[12] Mathews, J. and D. Wiseman (2022), Shifting the paradigm : exploring opportunities for community justice help : a review of access to justice literature and activity, Ottawa, ON : Department of Justice Canada = Ministère de la Justice Canada, 2021., https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.913616/publication.html.

[23] Maurino, G. (2020), Putting People at the Center, Center on International Cooperation.

[6] McDonald, H. and S. Wei (2019), Uptake of legal self-help resources: what works, for whom and for what?, Law and Justice Foundation of NSW.

[18] Mental Disability Advocacy Center (2015), Access to Justice for Children with Mental Disabilities: International Standards and Findings from Ten EU Member States.

[14] Moorhead, R., A. Sherr and A. Paterson (2003), “Contesting Professionalism: Legal Aid and Nonlawyers in England and Wales”, Law & Society Review, Vol. 37/4, pp. 765-808.

[38] Moynihan, D., P. Herd and H. Harvey (2014), Administrative burden: Learning, psychological, and compliance costs in citizen-state interactions, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol.25/1, pp.43-69, https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/25/1/43/885957.

[32] Nederlanse Juristen Vereniging (2023), Klare Taal, Wolters Kluwer.

[57] OECD (2025), “Supporting businesses through better justice systems: A focus on SMEs and entrepreneurship”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 79, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1791ca66-en.

[34] OECD (2025), Governing with Artificial Intelligence: The State of Play and Way Forward in Core Government Functions, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/795de142-en., OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/795de142-en.

[41] OECD (2025), Government at a Glance 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0efd0bcd-en.

[36] OECD (2025), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/56b60e39-en.

[29] OECD (2024), Do Adults Have the Skills They Need to Thrive in a Changing World?: Survey of Adult Skills 2023, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b263dc5d-en.

[39] OECD (2024), “Fixing frictions: ‘sludge audits’ around the world: How governments are using behavioural science to reduce psychological burdens in public services”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 48, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5e9bb35c-en.

[40] OECD (2024), Recommendation of the Council on Human-Centred Public Administrative Services, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0503.

[64] OECD (2023), Disability, Work and Inclusion in Italy: Better Assessment for Better Support, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/dc86aff8-en.

[60] OECD (2023), OECD Child-Friendly Justice Framework: Building a people-centred justice system, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 41, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6a60970e-en.

[26] OECD (2023), Recommendation of the Council on Access to Justice and People-Centred Justice Systems, OECD/LEGAL/0498, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0498.

[59] OECD (2023), Recommendation of the Council on the Governance of Digital Identity, OECD/LEGAL/0491, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0491.

[4] OECD (2023), Towards a Child-friendly Justice System in Latvia: Implementing the Barnahus model, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/83ab7bf5-en.

[3] OECD (2021), OECD Framework and Good Practice Principles for People-Centred Justice, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cdc3bde7-en.

[2] OECD (2020), One-Stop Shops for Citizens and Business, OECD Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b0b0924e-en.

[63] Office for Access to Justice (n.d.), Access to Justice is Disability Access, U.S. Department of Justice.

[62] Plouin M et al (2021), A crisis on the horizon: Ensuring affordable, accessible housing for people with disabilities, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 261, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/306e6993-en.

[28] Prescott, J. (2017), “Improving Access to Justice in State Courts with Platform Technology”, Univ. of Mich. L. School Scholarship Repository, pp. 1993-2050.

[27] Riley, M. (2020), “Mediation of Complaints against Police: Program Implementation in the Denver Police Department”, Newcastle L. Rev., Vol. 15, pp. 5-34.

[51] Samen Recht Vinden (n.d.), Wat we doen, https://samenrechtvinden.nl/wat-we-doen.

[21] Schonewille, M. and F. Schonewille (2014), The Variegated Landscape of Mediation: A Comparative Study of Mediation Regulation and Practices in Europe and the World, Eleven International Publishing.

[25] Schuenemann, P. (2023), Enabling Access to Justice, Civil Society Participation and Transparency (EnACT).

[7] Social Security Tribunal of Canada (n.d.), Your Appeal, https://sst-tss.gc.ca/en/your-appeal.

[45] Steven, D. et al. (2021), Justice for All and the Social Contract in Peril.

[66] The Pew Charitable Trusts (2024), How to Make Courts Accessible to Users With Disabilities and Limited English Proficiency.

[53] Tobin-Tyler, E. (2023), “Health Justice Partnerships: An International Comparison of Approaches to EMploying Law to Promote Prevention and Health Equity.”, J. Law Med Ethics, Vol. 51/2, pp. 332-343.

[65] Touzet, C. (2023), Using AI to support people with disability in the labour market: Opportunities and challenges, OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers, No. 7, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/008b32b7-en.

[46] Van den Bos, K. (2014), “On the Role of Perceived Procedural Justice in Citizens’ Reactions to Government Decisions and the Handling of Conflicts”, Utrecht Law Review, pp. 1-26.

[54] Verwey-Jonker Instituut (2023), Het signaleren van geldzorgen door de huisarts, https://www.verwey-jonker.nl/artikel/het-signaleren-van-geldzorgen-door-de-huisarts/.

[48] Vinzant, J. (1996), “Street-level Leadership: Rethinking the Role of Public Servants in Contemporary Governance”, The American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 26/4, pp. 457-476.

[17] Ward Berenschot and Taufik Rinaldi (2018), Paralegalism in Indonesia: Balancing Relationships in the Shadow of the Law” in Vivek Maru and Varun Gauri (eds), Community Paralegals and the Pursuit of Justice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[55] Weston, M. (2022), The Benefits of Access to Justice for Economies, Societies and the Social Contract: A Literature Review, Open Government Partnership.