Delivering people-centred legal and justice services requires a continuum of accessible, high-quality support that responds to the needs, rights and capabilities of all individuals. This includes designing services with people at the centre; using clear and inclusive language; and promoting timely, affordable and effective solutions. Services should address recurring legal and justice needs systemically and ensure fair processes and outcomes. Reaching underserved populations, including those in rural and remote areas, is essential to ensure that justice is within everyone’s reach. This chapter provides self-assessment questions, actions and examples to support the design and delivery of people-centred justice and legal services, in support of the implementation of the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Access to Justice and People-Centred Justice Systems.
Toolkit for Access to Justice and People‑Centred Justice Systems
3. Design and delivery of people‑centred legal and justice services
Copy link to 3. Design and delivery of people‑centred legal and justice servicesAbstract
Key provision of the OECD Recommendation
Copy link to Key provision of the OECD RecommendationDesign and deliver people-centred legal and justice services by:
ensuring the availability, accessibility and quality of a continuum of legal and justice-related services
ensuring that legal, justice and related services are:
designed with people at the centre, taking into account their rights and possible vulnerabilities, and based on empirical understanding of their legal and justice needs, preferences and capabilities
provided in clear, plain and inclusive language and manner, avoiding complexity
appropriate, proportionate, affordable, effective and responsive to legal and justice needs, emphasising the prevention and timely resolution of conflicts
addressing recurring legal and justice needs on a systemic basis, with attention to underlying causes and considering different population subgroups
supported by safeguards and procedures to ensure fair processes and fair outcomes, and ensuring quality of legal procedures
developed through an appropriate mix of policy, regulatory and other measures and all continuously improved on the basis of feedback from people and businesses about their experiences with these services
ensuring that justice is within reach for everyone regardless of their geographical location, including rural and remote areas, promoting mobility to bring justice and legal services directly to the people.
Planning and designing legal, justice-related, and related services with people at the centre
Copy link to Planning and designing legal, justice-related, and related services with people at the centreWhy is it important?
Addressing people’s legal and justice needs delivers tangible benefits for people and businesses and prevents legal and justice needs from escalating over time.
Adopting people-centred approaches in planning, designing and delivering services to address legal and justice needs involves a transformation built on evidence and data that considers the capabilities and circumstances of people experiencing legal and justice needs, and what services and delivery modes are the most appropriate to meet their needs. Sound evidence about which strategies are the most effective to address different needs in different circumstances will also be an important input into the process, as will other factors.
Legal needs surveys (LNS) offer a representative view of people’s everyday legal issues, how they respond to them, the pathways they take when confronting legal and justice needs, the services they use, and the outcomes they achieve. Other data sources, such as court data, census and demographic data, and service delivery data – as well as targeted qualitative studies focusing on particular target groups – can add to the knowledge base and provide a more comprehensive picture of needs, and of the gaps in the services available or received.
Priority checklist
A. Ensure that service planning, design and delivery are informed by sound representative data and co-created with target groups where possible
Self-assessment questions
Is there sufficient data (e.g. from LNS, census data, official court data, service delivery data, etc.) to provide needed insights about target groups and geographic structures relevant for service planning?
Are there mechanisms to incorporate data and evidence, including from LNS, into service planning, funding, design and delivery?
Are there mechanisms to facilitate collaborative planning and information sharing between legal and justice services, to ensure that through co-ordination and knowledge-sharing, there are no gaps in service delivery?
Does the justice system have appropriate service delivery flexibility to make adjustments to the planning and delivery of services to address gaps in the service continuum?
What are the key actions to consider?
Identify the most common and the most impactful legal and justice needs experienced by people and use them (see Pillar 5) as the basis for service design and delivery, as well as for planning and resource allocation.
Develop and implement a process for identifying legal needs across the country, using different sources of data (e.g. LNS, social assistance data, economic data, criminal prosecution data).
Ensure that services are distributed across the territory and proactively reach the entire population, especially people in vulnerable conditions, and incorporate service monitoring and evaluation.
Establish mechanisms for collaborative planning and information sharing among legal and justice services to avoid gaps in service delivery, establish realistic and effective pathways between services, and promote cost-effective service delivery.
What are the pitfalls to avoid?
Failing to engage target groups, including in vulnerable situations, in co-creating services at an early stage can lead to poorly tailored solutions that do not respond to people’s real needs and capabilities, diminishing the effectiveness and reach of the services.
Neglecting to apply a “common sense check” through stakeholder consultation risks relying on potentially wrong estimates, reducing the effectiveness of planning and resource allocation.
Failing to adopt people-centred planning and to conduct ongoing monitoring, and neglecting to ensure a strategic allocation of resources can undermine the ability to assess and improve service effectiveness and accessibility.
Box 3.1. Good practice examples of using evidence for service planning
Copy link to Box 3.1. Good practice examples of using evidence for service planningAustralia: Need for Legal Assistance Indicators
In 2015, New South Wales (NSW; Australia) developed the Need for Legal Assistance Services (NLAS) indicators. These provide a census-based measure of the geographic distribution of potential demand for legal assistance services from organisations such as legal aid commissions and community legal centres. Following the release by the NSW South Wales revised, updated and expanded the NLAS indicators. The NLAS indicators were further updated after the release of the 2021 Census data.
NLAS indicators have been developed to anticipate the need for legal assistance services based on general legal capability, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, and culturally and linguistically diverse people.
They use criminal finalisation data to anticipate the need for legal representation services and to support service delivery planning. The indicators show that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (First Nations) people in Australia are among the most disadvantaged on most measures. Making up approximately 3% of the total population, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are heavily overrepresented in the criminal justice system, in the (child) care and protection system, and as victims of domestic and family violence.
The availability of quality criminal court prosecution and finalisation data (from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research) – including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status of the accused – allowed the Law and Justice Foundation of NSW and the New South Wales Aboriginal Legal Service to develop proxy indicators to predict likely need for legal assistance in criminal matters for Aboriginal people in NSW, and thus provide important input into the planning of service delivery by the New South Wales Aboriginal legal service.
Colombia: Justice in remote regions
In Colombia, over the last 15 years, the local justice systems strategy has been evolving, seeking to be more people centred by making use of local justice actors and processes in collaboration and partnership with subnational and national levels of government to deliver comprehensive, relevant and timely responses to legal and justice needs in an increasing number of municipalities.
Local justice systems function as interconnected networks in which public institutions, private actors and community authorities work together to respond to the justice needs of a municipality. Their core purpose is to offer co-ordinated solutions that protect rights and help manage conflicts. Through defined referral pathways, each actor plays a role in delivering responses that are comprehensive, appropriate and timely within the local context. This model depends not only on the involvement of state bodies but also on the active contribution of non-state actors, especially community leaders. The Colombian Ministry of Justice advocates for the implementation of the local justice systems across all of the more than 1 100 municipalities nationwide.
Establishing and maintaining a continuum of available, accessible, quality and targeted legal and justice services
Copy link to Establishing and maintaining a continuum of available, accessible, quality and targeted legal and justice servicesWhy is it important?
Reaching all groups with people-centred services requires a continuum of assistance and dispute resolution options – formal and informal – tailored to the needs of diverse groups of people and delivered in responsive formats and locations. Ensuring services are available across the national territory means mapping where needs and likely demand arise to allocate resources efficiently.
It is critical to make the continuum operate as one system and use no wrong door entry, common intake, interoperable referrals and warm handoffs, so users move logically from information to advice to resolution without retelling their story. A shared case view and feedback loops between providers can help close gaps and prevent drop-offs.
To the extent possible, target groups should be prioritised for legal assistance service delivery. Mobile and outreach services can help to reach such groups, especially in remote areas, although “outreach” strategies can be important in reaching target groups regardless of remoteness.
Ensuring services are accessible includes ensuring people are aware of them and, importantly, can quickly reach most of the appropriate services to address their legal and justice needs. Easily identifiable access points, triage and effective referral to the most appropriate services are important features to improve the accessibility of the continuum of services.
Services should be of high quality, timely, consistent, knowledgeable, responsive, affordable and fair. Justice systems should define common quality standards for the continuum and ensure their implementation and monitoring across providers.
Priority checklist
A. Guide people to the right and accessible service along the continuum: Awareness, triage and referral.
B. Define and deliver “quality” legal and justice-related services and procedures.
C. Target support, connect with other needed services, and make it timely and appropriate to the person’s legal capability and needs.
A. Guide people to the right service along the continuum: Awareness, triage and referral
Self-assessment questions
Are legal and justice services within reach of all people, including those in remote and rural areas, and delivered in ways that are accessible and suited to the needs of the target groups?
Are national and local authorities ensuring a clearly defined, integrated continuum of legal and justice services – with standardised entry, triage, referral and escalation pathways – across providers and regions?
Can institutions trace end-to-end user journeys across that continuum – via a shared case view and data-sharing protocols – to monitor handoffs, time-to-resolution, outcomes and drop-off points?
Are there simple entry points for people to access services to obtain appropriate information, triage and referral to more targeted services? Are there mechanisms for “seamless” transfers of disputes across services?
Do justice institutions and services have trained staff and appropriate processes to “triage” properly and appropriately refer clients to the most relevant services across the continuum of services? Are referral systems (such as service databases) in place to support this?
Are there mechanisms in place to co-ordinate between justice and legal services to ensure that people are referred to the most appropriate service?
What are the key actions to consider?
Map and publicise the national service continuum: inventory providers and coverage; define standard pathways and escalation rules; implement interoperable referrals via common intake and a shared directory; set governance to monitor handoffs, time-to-resolution, outcomes and drop‑offs; run quarterly end‑to-end user-journey tests.
Establish appropriate (including culturally appropriate and with respect to people’s circumstances) and readily accessible “entry points” (such as telephone, online and face-to face services) for people to seek initial information, triage, advice and referral to appropriate services and pathways.
Conduct targeted, ongoing awareness and communications strategies to ensure people are aware of, or can readily become aware of, the appropriate services when they confront a legal problem. Consider measuring people’s and target groups’ awareness of legal services (see Chapter 5).
Establish co-ordination mechanisms between services to help clients reach the most appropriate service, including sharing data where appropriate; co-ordinate legal information and other justice services to ensure gaps in service are minimised yet duplication and waste are avoided; provide seamless transfer of disputes across services, as needed.
Develop the capability across the justice sector to “triage” and refer people to the appropriate justice services. In client satisfaction and outcomes assessments, include feedback on triage and referral processes, as well as on pathways and service co-ordination.
What are the pitfalls to avoid?
Failing to accurately assess public awareness of legal and justice services can lead to an overestimation of service reach and impact, hence potentially resulting in a wide range of unmet legal and justice needs.
Neglecting to provide clear, accessible guidance on navigating the available services and pathways can either prevent users from accessing them due to the complexity of the system or overwhelm them with too many choices, causing many to disengage.
Box 3.2. Good practice examples of accessible points of entry, triage and referral
Copy link to Box 3.2. Good practice examples of accessible points of entry, triage and referralMany countries provide telephone and online access to legal and justice services, providing a mix of triage, referral and information services, such as:
Citizen’s Advice (United Kingdom) for online and telephone options.
Civil Legal Advice (United Kingdom) is operated by legal aid and provides information, some referral to legal advice, or referral to other services where appropriate.
LawAccess NSW (Australia) provides a centralised legal information and referral service, and is the effective point of entry for Legal Aid NSW services.
Legal Aid Ontario (Canada) provides access to legal help by telephone (in English and French, and supporting callers with disabilities), as well as through online chat and a “Service Finder” tool to assist people to find the right services.
Many also provide face-to-face options for access in addition to online and telephone access, such as the United Kingdom’s Citizen’s Advice centres and the “Het Juridisch Loket” in the Netherlands, which provides online access to plain language legal information as well as online, written and face-to-face (at one of the offices) opportunities to approach the legal aid system and obtain information and advice, and perhaps representation or mediation.
In the United States, the National Centre for State Courts has developed a guide to assist in the adoption of triage to transform family justice, using triage in a pathways model to improve case management, prioritise urgent issues and better support families. Since commencing in 2020, courts in Connecticut, Kansas and Massachusetts have also adopted triage-based pathways and demonstrated clear gains in efficiency and case outcomes. Connecticut’s model led to a dramatic increase in cases resolved within 90 days of filing.
In New South Wales (NSW; Australia), Legal Aid NSW has implemented an intentional strategy to use triage to then link clients to the most appropriate service at Legal Aid NSW. In terms of broader referral strategies, LawAccess NSW (now a programme within Legal Aid NSW) provides – in addition to plain language legal information – a telephone triage service and referral to a full range of legal assistance services (governmental and non-governmental) and other related public services.
France has made important efforts in recent years to bring justice closer to citizens across the country. The key part of this strategy has been the implementation of the Access to Law Network (Conseil Départemental de l’accès à droit, CDAD) – an information, advice and referral network – although this is complemented by the Jurisdictional aid offices network (essentially legal aid funding) and a Victims Support Network.
Key elements of the CDAD network include 2 981 “justice points”, 150 “justice and law houses”, a national telephone number, enabling connection to a legal advice centre and a CDAD office in each of the 101 departments across metropolitan France. While the role of the justice points is to provide information, referral and some triage associated with that, importantly, at present, 97% of the French population is within a 30-minute drive of a justice point. Justice points are distributed across the country and while most may be generalist in nature, some have a specialised focus; some justice points in regional areas might specialise in legal matters of particular relevance to that particular region.
While the CDAD network is not intended to replace the engagement of lawyers, some referral is possible from one justice point to another specialist justice point, where appointments with lawyers can be scheduled. Referrals may also be made to private lawyers, or to the Access to Financial Assistance for Justice Network to seek financial assistance by way of legal aid for a particular client.
The French Ministry of Justice is working on communications strategies to improve awareness of these services across the country/region.
Sources: Coumarelos and McDonald (2019[6]); Civil Legal Advice (n.d.[7]); NCSC (n.d.[8]); (Citizens Advice, 2025[9]); (Legal Aid Ontario, 2025[10]); (Juridisch Loket, 2025[11]); (Legalaid New South Wales, 2025[12]); (Government of France, 2024[13]).
B. Define and deliver “quality” legal and justice-related services
Self-assessment questions
Have quality standards been developed for different types of legal and justice services, also from the perspective of the consumer/person experiencing the legal need?
Are there measures to assess and monitor the quality of services, including outcomes, timeliness, responsiveness, affordability, appropriateness and proportionality?
Are questions concerning service and procedural quality incorporated into client satisfaction and outcomes assessments?
What are the key actions to consider?
Define and embed quality standards to be used in the design and delivery of legal and justice services.
Maintain a programme of monitoring and assessment of services against defined quality standards.
What are the pitfalls to avoid?
Neglecting to clearly define and apply quality standards for services across the justice system such as timeliness, affordability, responsiveness and fairness can lead to inconsistent service delivery.
Box 3.3. Good practice examples of defining justice service quality
Copy link to Box 3.3. Good practice examples of defining justice service qualityMalta: Quality standards for community-based and outreach services
While not exclusively focused on legal and justice services, this resource establishes the level of service service providers should deliver and, in relation to community-based and outreach services, the standards should guide service providers in relation to:
the sufficiency of community-based and outreach services
the choice of workers, who should be adequate and competent to carry out the work entrusted to them
the manner in which these services should be managed.
These guidelines break down a number of standards into specific quality indicators and performance indicators. Many of the standards are directly relevant to justice services, including people-centred support interventions, data handling and information dissemination, interagency collaboration and external relations, and service quality management. These guidelines provide a model for which quality standards for legal and justice services can be developed and applied.
The Netherlands: Assuring quality in legal aid service delivery
The Netherlands’ Legal Aid Board uses a number of strategies to monitor and assure quality and services delivered:
The number of legal aid certificates that can be granted to a lawyer or mediator per year is limited to 250, and the maximum number of paid working hours for each lawyer is limited to 2 000 per year. These limits are imposed to ensure that lawyers and mediators have enough time to spend on each case.
It conducts regular satisfaction surveys with Legal Aid clients. The LAB also surveys other legal professionals (judges, prosecutors) to assess the standard of lawyers’ work. The Knowledge Center of the Legal Aid Board is working on designing and implementing a more structural feedback loop, of which the experiences of citizens (also with their lawyer) are a key component.
In the area of asylum law (where clients are particularly vulnerable), the Netherlands has established peer reviews of lawyers’ performance when delivering legal services. Peers review a lawyer’s files regularly, attend court sessions and monitor new asylum lawyers.
Sources: Malta Social Care Standards Authority (2020[14]); van der Lans, Peters and Verdonschot (2023[15]).
C. Target support, connect with other needed services, and make it timely and appropriate to the person’s legal capability and needs
Self-assessment questions
Are services designed and delivered in the most appropriate way to be accessible to and useful for all users, including target groups?
Are relevant services “joined up” with other legal and non-legal services to reach target groups where they are located, and to ensure they can be provided holistically to meet the interconnected needs of clients?
Are services targeted and tailored for target groups depending on their legal capability and legal and justice needs, and based on the knowledge of what works (see Chapter 5)?
Are service options designed to take into account that people will seek assistance at different stages when confronting legal and justice needs, and the timeliness will vary between groups?
What are the key actions to consider?
Target and tailor services for target groups, and connect and collaborate with other legal and other non-legal public service providers (recognising that those experiencing complex legal and justice needs will also often experience health, housing and other problems).
Design a suite of services in a tailored manner, format and delivery location that are the most appropriate in all the circumstances based on the characteristics, legal capability and needs of the target groups.
What are the pitfalls to avoid?
Failing to shift to a people-centred approach and prioritise high-need target groups can result in inefficient services that are misaligned with people’s real legal and justice needs.
Box 3.4. Good practice examples of appropriate and targeted services
Copy link to Box 3.4. Good practice examples of appropriate and targeted servicesAustralia: Targeted and appropriate services for indigenous people: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services
Across all states and territories in Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services (ATSILS) provide professional and culturally competent legal services appropriate for indigenous Australians. While funded largely by government, each ATSILS is an Aboriginal community-controlled non‑governmental organisation and delivers services to indigenous people, often in regional and remote areas, through regional offices, outreach services, and representation services at regional and “bush” courts. Established in 1972, each ATSILS delivers a broad range of civil, family and criminal law services, as well as a range of prevention, intervention and community legal education programmes; coronial and public sector monitoring; and Throughcare services. ATSILS employ indigenous “field officers” to facilitate effective and culturally appropriate engagement with local indigenous communities and the in-house lawyers who provide much of the ATSILS services.
Colombia: Targeting people-centred and restorative justice for victims
Implementation of the Delivering Justice in the Territory for Peace (“Justicia en Territorio para la Paz Total”) Program targets services to meet the needs of victims by focusing on access to justice, strengthening the search for missing persons, articulating transitional justice mechanisms, and disseminating recommendations for peace and restorative justice. This transitional justice approach also includes:
Supporting local justice committees to facilitate co-ordination and community participation to identify and overcome barriers to justice, strengthening restorative, community-based and formal justice.
Commissioning studies focused on people-centred justice for victims of the armed conflict, especially those experiencing gender-based violence and sexual violence, from a difference-based and restorative perspective, including for women and LGBTIQ+ individuals from ethnic groups.
Promoting dialogue spaces to advance a specialised jurisdiction with a gender perspective to address the profound lack of justice, high impunity and “judicial violence” against women, girls and LGBTIQ+ people. This includes proposals for a plural, participatory and territorial design with trained judges and psychosocial teams and mechanisms for dialogue between formal, indigenous and Afro-Colombian justice systems.
Creation of a co-ordination body between the national government and the Special Jurisdiction for Peace to facilitate compliance with the Special Jurisdiction for Peace sanctions with a gender, territorial, participatory and restorative approach.
Connecting services to provide a “one-stop shop” for people needing access to justice
In 1995, the Colombian Ministry of Justice launched the Justice Houses (“Casas de Justicia”) programme, with the aim to address the unmet justice needs of people in Colombia. The initiative began with two centres located in the low-income neighbourhoods of Bogota and Cali. According to the latest information, the programme has expanded and now includes 114 houses in 92 municipalities.
The “casas” function as one-stop shops, bringing together a range of 17 different local and national, formal and non-formal justice institutions. This ranges from social workers and community development officers to legal aid clinics.
The integration of multiple services under one roof reduces both the physical and cultural barriers, making justice more accessible for everyone. For example, no appointment is needed and services are free of charge and easy to arrange. Moreover, legal representation is not required, and conflicts are frequently resolved in a matter of days.
Ireland: Children and the Family Justice Strategy 2022-2025
In developing its first Family Justice Strategy, Ireland established Goal 1 as to place children’s needs at the heart of the family justice system, ensure their views are heard and taken into account, and provide support for their individual journeys through the system.
Further, the strategy sought to “… ensure that children are at the centre of the family justice system. As of 2015 the voice of the child in childcare, adoption, guardianship, custody and access proceedings has been enshrined in the Constitution and as such it is the responsibility of all those working within the family justice system to ensure that the voice of the child is heard and considered. It was regarded as the single most important focus for the family justice system by the majority of consultees in the public consultation.”
Implementing the strategy meant tailoring justice systems, processes and services to be most appropriate for children and their participation in the range of legal issues associated with family justice, including:
reviewing and reforming arrangements to ensure that hearing the voice of the child is effective and consistent across all proceedings
developing and delivering child-friendly information to explain family justice processes to children
considering the role of child liaison officers to help guide children through the family justice system
identifying and delivering common and standardised child-focused training to all professionals working within the family justice system
developing protocols and guidance to assist judges when speaking to or interviewing children in family law cases.
Poland: Obligation to listen to the child, including the provision of child-friendly conditions for hearings
In civil proceedings concerning the person or property of a child, the court is obliged to hear the child if his/her mental development, state of health and degree of maturity allow, and to take into account his/her reasonable wishes as far as possible. The place where the child is to be heard is determined according to the child’s needs. Children with mental or developmental disorders and children under the age of 13 are heard in suitably adapted rooms on the premises of the court or at a suitable place outside. Children who are over 13 years of age, in addition to the above-mentioned rooms, may be questioned in a suitably adapted judge’s office or in another room. The rooms must have constant access to daylight, be equipped with a table and an armchair for the child, be large enough to allow the child to move around, and suitable to enable the child to concentrate and express themselves freely.
Portugal: Non-governmental organisation providing “bridge” joining-up justice services and broader holistic services
In Portugal, non-governmental organisations provide an important bridge between people in need of legal and related services and the justice system components that can facilitate the resolution of their problems. The Portuguese Consumer Defence Association and the Portuguese Victim Support Association sustain high awareness levels across the community and see as part of their mandates the role of guiding people along appropriate pathways – especially justice pathways – to resolve their problems. The Portuguese Victim Support Association, for example, supports the police and the courts in a number of locations as a means of helping their clients engage in justice processes. It helps them to apply for and access legal aid and to access other support services as they deal with the problems associated with the violence they have experienced. The Portuguese Consumer Defence Association, with a consumer focus, has strong links and engagement with relevant alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services and assists consumers with legal problems to navigate these pathways.
Importantly, these non-governmental organisations provide accessible entry points and services at a time, place and manner that is appropriate to their clients and the legal and justice needs they are experiencing.
The Netherlands: Reintegration by design: Data-driven, human-centred, collaborative strategy for reintegration after detention
The Netherlands has been reforming its prison system to be more humane and to focus on the reintegration of prisoners into society. Apart from particular efforts to enhance the education, qualifications and thus employability of inmates after their release, the reintegration strategy also includes the development of individual reintegration plans for each prisoner. These plans focus on five basic needs for reintegration: income, housing, debt resolution, care and having a valid identification. The development and implementation of these plans involve collaboration between relevant prison and government agencies.
Importantly, the prison system uses a range of data sources to monitor and track progress on reintegration and rehabilitation. The reintegration information collected by the prison service is shared with partner organisations which form part of the broader reintegration chain, including municipal governments and probation services, among others. The co-ordinated exchange of data between agencies is important and allows the various agencies in the reintegration chain to offer help sooner, more effectively improving the chance of successful return to society and lowering the risk of recidivism.
Sources: UNDP and UNODC (2016[16]); OECD (2024[17]; 2023[18]); (APAV, 2025[19]); (DECO, 2025[20]); Roelen and Sabates-Wheeler (2012[21]); (Mulherin, G., 2023[22]); (NATSILS, 2025[23]); (Piconne T., 2019[24]); (Ministerio de Justicia y del Derecho, 2024[25]); (Gutiérrez-Rodríguez C., 2025[26]); (Ministerio de Justicia y del Derecho, 2025[27]); (Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, 2024[28]); (CEACL, 2024[29]); (Michalak M., 2021[30]); (Justice Trends, 2025[31]).
Ensuring that legal and justice-related services are provided in clear and plain language and manner
Copy link to Ensuring that legal and justice-related services are provided in clear and plain language and mannerWhy is it important?
The complexity of legal processes and institutions has long been recognised as a challenge for most people in accessing justice.
Efforts have been made in recent years to simplify public legal information to assist people in bringing their legal matters to formal justice institutions. Yet often these efforts are not matched by simplified language and processes when the litigant enters into the dispute resolution process.
A people-centred justice system would aim to deliver the right service to the right person at the right time in the right place. It would also seek to continuously simplify and make the processes and language of the entire justice system more accessible.
To bring about change in justice system language and simplify its processes, justice workers and the legal profession at all levels require comprehensive guidance and training. Appropriate guidelines and artificial intelligence and technological tools can be incorporated to support the transition.
Priority checklist
A. Support a culture of a justice sector providing services with reduced complexity and clear, plain and inclusive language
B. Develop institutional and personnel capacity to implement accessible and understandable communications.
A. Support a culture of a justice sector providing services with reduced complexity and clear, plain and inclusive language
Self-assessment questions
Are requirements for plain language and reduced complexity of legal processes identified, agreed upon, made publicly available and regularly updated?
Does the justice system’s regulatory environment promote and support the use of clear and understandable language?
What are the key actions to consider?
Develop requirements for legal information and services to be provided in clear and plain language and manner, reducing complexity.
Regularly review justice communications, procedures and policies to reduce complexity and improve clarity. Ensure that the language is tested with actual and potential users.
What are the pitfalls to avoid?
Failing to mandate, use and monitor clearer language and simplified procedures across the justice and legal system can limit the ability to improve the accessibility of the system.
Box 3.5. Good practice examples of using plain language
Copy link to Box 3.5. Good practice examples of using plain languageAustralia: Plain language policy for legislative drafting
The Parliamentary Counsel’s Office in New South Wales is responsible for legislative drafting. The plain language policy sets out the office’s policy for the use of plain language in legislative drafting. It begins by defining “plain language” as adopted by the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office then outlines the “principles” of plain language drafting to be applied in all legislation.
Colombia: Simplification through greater standardisation
Following the guidelines of the Integrated System of Management and Control of Quality and the Environment (SIGCMA) and legal provisions (Article 55 of Law 270 of 1996, as amended by Article 22 of Law 2430 of 2023), the Judicial Branch has begun an initiative to strengthen transparency, communication efficiency and citizen trust in judicial decisions through a process of standardising rulings and strengthening plain language in the Judicial Branch. It aims to do this by unifying the structure, style and drafting of judicial decisions, ensuring their clarity, coherence and comprehensibility for users of the administration of justice.
Among the main advances achieved are the development of spaces for dialogue and collaborative analysis among judicial servants to review models of judgments, orders and decisions, with the purpose of defining a uniform structure that facilitates the understanding of rulings both for judicial operators and for citizens. Likewise, in some regions of the country, judicial officials have begun the preparation and validation of ruling formats that incorporate plain, concise and accessible language, aimed at strengthening the relationship between the administration of justice and its users.
Through this initiative the Judicial Branch reaffirms its commitment to consolidating an institutional culture based on plain language and effective communication. To this end:
coordinated progress is being made among the different jurisdictions and specialties in the standardisation of judicial rulings, in order to ensure decisions that are understandable, coherent and citizen-oriented.
work is underway to standardise the processes and procedures that comprise the different procedural stages, complementing this effort.
While the first initiative defines a uniform model for drafting rulings, the second seeks to harmonise how judicial proceedings are conducted; both contribute to a more efficient, transparent and standardised administration of justice.
Ireland: National Digital Strategy
Ireland’s National Digital Strategy is seeing the introduction of modern desktop and mobile services across all courts and staff, courtrooms, and members of the judiciary, which will result in more efficient and simplified processes. To support the training and capacity development of court personnel, improved adoption support models have been introduced for:
members of the judiciary, with proactive and regular check-ins, targeted and specific one-on-one training sessions, and the commencement of rolling training webinar sessions
staff of a dedicated adoption team with frequent and scheduled in-person site visits to listen, learn and inform on all aspects of the technology services catalogue.
Other process simplification features of Ireland’s National Digital Strategy include the:
Introduction of a single digital case management system to create a consistent user-centred experience throughout case management and rationalise courts service processes and procedures.
Introduction of a portal to allow practitioners and litigants to create and track case applications online, helping to manage scheduling and deadlines, and communication between practitioners and litigants.
Development of virtual tours of court buildings, allowing people to navigate and understand the environment before coming to court. In addition, virtual reality headsets are beginning to be used to help witnesses and vulnerable users prepare for the court experience in advance.
Poland: Use of experts in assistive and alternative communication for people with an intellectual disability
An amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure (Article 185e) came into force on 15 February 2024 which creates the requirement for courts to appoint an additional expert competent in the field of supportive and alternative communication in each case where a person with an intellectual disability has difficulty communicating orally that prevents or hinders communication. This provision regulates the “friendly mode of interrogation” of a witness who has a mental or developmental disorder, disturbances in the ability to perceive or reproduce perceptions, and there is a justified fear that questioning them in conditions other than those specified in this provision could have a negative impact on their mental state or would be significantly hindered.
Sweden: Range of measures to simplify language and process
Sweden has been progressively working for a number of years to simplify justice language and processes, including through:
As part of its ongoing programme of assessing court parties’ capabilities and accessibility, many Swedish courts systematically gather feedback from parties, witnesses and professionals through such mechanisms as surveys and interviews, which includes feedback in relation to the clarity of information, of judicial and court decisions and communications, and of structures and styles.
The Swedish Language Act not only widens the scope of “accessible language” to include national minority languages, it also assigns to the Institute for Language and Folklore the responsibility for monitoring and evaluating the use of plain language in the public administration, including in the justice sector.
Digitisation reforms, including the “E-service”, are being used to simplify administrative processes (though digital submission, access and other tools).
United States: Mandating the use of plain language: US Plain Writing Act 2010
The purpose of this act is “to improve the effectiveness and accountability of federal agencies to the public by promoting clear government communication that the public can understand and use.” The act requires that – after a lead in period – “… each agency shall use plain writing in every covered document of the agency that the agency issues or substantially revises.”
To support the implementation of this policy, the act requires that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget develop and issue guidance on implementing the requirements of “the act, but that before such guidance is issued, as interim guidance, agencies may follow the guidance of the (A) Plain Language Action and Information Network or (B) guidance provided by the head of the agency that is consistent with the guidelines referred to in subparagraph (A)(above).”
Sources: Government of the United States (2010[32]); New South Wales Parliamentary Counsel’s Office (2017[33]); Polish Code of Criminal Procedure (2023[34]); (Government of Colombia, 2025[35]); (Department of the Taoiseach, 2025[36]); (Government Offices of Sweden, 2009[37]).
B. Develop institutional and personnel capacity to implement accessible and understandable communications
Self-assessment questions
Are there requirements for public sector justice employees, across the justice chain, to undergo regular training in plain language communication?
Are there guidelines to support language simplification in the justice system?
What are the key actions to consider?
Develop comprehensive and mandatory training, including on plain language communication and the use of simplified processes for all justice employees.
Incorporate principles of plain language communications and simplified procedures into all technological and artificial intelligence capability enhancements in the justice system.
What are the pitfalls to avoid?
Failing to conduct regular training on clear language and procedures can undermine efforts to improve the ease of use of justice systems.
Ensuring that legal and justice-related services are proportionate and affordable
Copy link to Ensuring that legal and justice-related services are proportionate and affordableWhy is it important?
Justice services – particularly those financed by the public purse – should deliver demonstrable value for money by achieving intended outcomes efficiently, effectively and in a timely manner. Service users require swift, affordable and fair resolution; providers seek to resolve matters reliably and cost‑effectively; and the state aims to contain costs while using justice to underpin trust, well-being and the proper functioning of public institutions. Within constrained fiscal contexts, resources should be prioritised and allocated based on evidence of need and impact; with processes that are accessible, navigable and proportionate; and with performance monitored against clear indicators of fair outcomes, timeliness and user experience.
Priority checklist
A. Ensure that legal and justice-related services are proportionate and affordable to individuals, service providers and the justice system.
B. Obtain feedback from legal and justice-related service users.
A. Ensure that legal and justice-related services are proportionate and affordable to individuals, service providers and the justice system
Self-assessment questions
Are budget allocations to service providers based on an estimation of legal and justice needs and the services needed to respond to them?
Does the justice system ensure proportionality – aligning the intensity and cost of procedures with case complexity, risk and expected outcomes?
What are the key actions to consider?
Design and institutionalise proportionate “value-for-money” assessments across legal and justice processes to detect and correct disproportionality.
Define affordability metrics for users, providers and the state, including user cost-to-income ratios, provider unit costs and public cost per outcome.
Create tiered pathways with clear thresholds (e.g. triage, ADR/ODR, simplified track, full proceedings) and time limits to keep procedures affordable and proportionate.
What are the pitfalls to avoid?
Ignoring spending concentration – where a small share of complex cases absorbs a large share of resources – can leave common legal and justice needs unmet and reduce system performance. At the same time, protect adequate funding for constitutionally significant, rights-sensitive and criminal matters.
Treating “affordability” as price-cutting only without diversified service models, proportionate procedures and sustained provider viability risks making the system ineffective for most users.
Over-simplifying low-value tracks without safeguards can erode fairness; maintain equity checks and periodic reviews to recalibrate thresholds and caps.
Box 3.6. Good practice example of proportional services
Copy link to Box 3.6. Good practice example of proportional servicesPoland: Ombudsman for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
The Ombudsman for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises was established in 2018 in the Polish legal system to be an independent, accessible and sustainable service to help small business to protect their rights. Its overall goals include the simplification of administrative and legislative processes for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), as well as supporting the digital transformation of SMEs. The ombudsman’s key roles include defending the interests of SMEs in their dealings with the state administration and other public bodies; reviewing and providing opinions and draft laws and regulations that affect the economic environment, including those concerning entrepreneurs; assisting in the organisation of mediation between SMEs and public administrative bodies conducting educational activities.
Poland: Free legal aid across the jurisdiction
Among a range of free aid services (including citizens’ advice, mediation, aid to people with disabilities, etc.), Poland provides a system of free legal aid for individuals struggling with legal and justice needs and who would not otherwise be able to afford a lawyer. It is also available to people with disabilities and those with special needs.
Legal aid facilities are provided directly by lawyers or non-governmental organisations and is managed at the “county” level. Access is generally through “citizens advice” offered at around 1 500 facilities across Poland. People can apply for legal aid in any county and can thus apply where it is the most convenient for them, and not necessarily their county of residence.
Lawyer-run services are managed by district bar councils which ensure quality control of lawyers participating in the legal aid. For facilities operated non-governmental organisations, the organisations are selected through competitions following existing legal guidelines.
Spain: Establishing justice offices in the municipality
As part of its digital transformation process, through its “Offices of Justice in the Municipality” project, the Spanish Ministry of Justice will provide all municipalities in Spain with a municipal office of justice that will transform the current Justice of the Peace Courts, extending their services to all citizens, including older people, people with disabilities, people with limited resources and victims. Services of the judicial bodies, the civil registry and other justice services will thus be provided in each municipality.
In particular, the project will establish at least 7 700 offices of justice across Spain, offering the population a simplified and increased range of services while minimising their need to travel to access these services. Specific support will be provided for people who have difficulty with digitalisation and for victims, including victims of gender-based violence. Offices will be equipped, and staff trained, to support this initiative.
Sources: Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Katowice (2024[38]); Polish Journal of Laws of 2023 (2018[39]); (Government of Spain, 2023[40]); (Government of Poland, 2025[41]).
B. Obtain feedback from legal and justice-related service users
Self-assessment questions
Is robust service client satisfaction/outcomes assessment conducted from clients of all legal, dispute resolution and other related services?
Do legal and justice services make use of “user groups” to obtain necessary feedback?
What are the key actions to consider?
Seek information from clients about their satisfaction with processes, outcomes, and the perception of affordability and responsiveness to their needs.
Establish requirements and protocols to ensure that all justice services conduct consultations with users and user groups.
Develop mechanisms to ensure that the outcomes of client satisfaction analysis and of user group engagement inform planning, resourcing and service delivery.
What are the pitfalls to avoid?
Failing to assess client satisfaction and outcomes based on robust response rates and sound methodologies risks producing unreliable data and weak foundations for evidence-based reform and limits the justice system’s ability to reform services in line with people’s real experiences and expectations.
Failing to include the perspectives of broader user groups – such as community workers, legal practitioners and support services – can miss valuable insights into the effectiveness and accessibility of justice services.
References
[19] APAV (2025), Homepage, https://apav.pt/.
[1] Ardila, E. and L. Ospina (2024), Local Justice Systems in Colombia: The Road to Collaborative Justice that Prioritizes People, Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies, https://cic.nyu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Local-Justice-Systems-in-Colombia-July-2024-EN.pdf.
[29] CEACL (2024), Latest Polish legal [selected] solutions for the protection of minors, https://doi.org/10.63189/XXMZ4764.
[38] Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Katowice (2024), “New Ombudsman for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises”, https://rig.katowice.pl/new-ombudsman-for-small-and-medium-sized-enterprises.
[9] Citizens Advice (2025), Contact us, https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/about-us/contact-us/.
[7] Civil Legal Advice (n.d.), Civil Legal Advice website, https://www.gov.uk/civil-legal-advice.
[6] Coumarelos, C. and H. McDonald (2019), Developing a Triage Framework: Linking Clients with Services at Legal Aid NSW, Law and Justice Foundation of NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia, https://lawfoundation.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/11PJR_Developing-a-triage-framework.-Linking-clients-with-services-at-Legal-Aid-NSW_2019.pdf.
[20] DECO (2025), Homepage, https://deco.pt/.
[28] Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration (2024), Family Justice Strategy 2022 - 2025, https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-justice-home-affairs-and-migration/collections/family-justice-strategy-2022-2025/.
[36] Department of the Taoiseach (2025), Updated National Digital Strategy 2025, https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-the-taoiseach/press-releases/updated-national-digital-strategy-2025/.
[35] Government of Colombia (2025), Information provided by the Colombia Delegation to the OECD.
[13] Government of France (2024), “Ministry of Justice: Presentation to OECD Pillar 2 Workshop and meeting with the Ministry on 3 December 2024”.
[41] Government of Poland (2025), “Free legal aid”, web page, https://www.gov.pl/web/free-aid/unpaid-legal-help.
[40] Government of Spain (2023), “Digital transformation projects in the justice system”, https://www.mjusticia.gob.es/es/JusticiaEspana/ProyectosTransformacionJusticia.
[32] Government of the United States (2010), Public Law 111-274, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-111publ274/pdf/PLAW-111publ274.pdf.
[37] Government Offices of Sweden (2009), Language Act in English, https://www.government.se/information-material/2009/05/language-act-in-english/.
[26] Gutiérrez-Rodríguez C. (2025), Memorial Justice? Lessons from Colombia on How Memorialization Can Serve Justice in Transitional Contexts, International Journal of Transitional Justice, Volume 19, Issue 2, https://doi.org/10.1093/ijt.
[5] HiiL (2024), “Paving the way for a responsive justice system in Colombia”, news, https://www.hiil.org/news/paving-the-way-for-a-responsive-justice-system-in-colombia/#:~:text=Working%20from%20data%20forms%20the,addressed%20as%20soon%20as%20possible.%E2%80%9D.
[11] Juridisch Loket (2025), Homepage, https://www.juridischloket.nl/en.
[31] Justice Trends (2025), Reintegration by design: Data-driven, human-centred detention in the Netherlands, Interview of Deputy Director of Prisons and Foreigner Detention, Toon Molleman.
[10] Legal Aid Ontario (2025), Contact us, https://www.legalaid.on.ca/more/corporate/contact-legal-aid-ontario/.
[12] Legalaid New South Wales (2025), Contact us, https://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/contact-us.
[14] Malta Social Care Standards Authority (2020), Guidelines – Social Regulatory Standards: Outreach and Community-based Services Offered to Individuals with Problems Related to Substance Abuse and Other Dependencies, Malta Ministry for the Family, Children’s Rights and Social Solidarity, Santa Venera, Malta, https://scsa.gov.mt/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Substance-ENG-Outreach-Services-HI-FOR-PRINT.pdf.
[30] Michalak M. (2021), Report on the position of a child in court proceedings in Poland and on cross-border family mediation, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/238493/Michalak%20report%20-%20EN%20unofficial%20courtesy%20translation.pdf.
[27] Ministerio de Justicia y del Derecho (2025), Casas de justicia, https://www.minjusticia.gov.co/programas/casas-de-justicia.
[25] Ministerio de Justicia y del Derecho (2024), Justicia en Territorio para la Paz Total, https://www.minjusticia.gov.co/programas-co/justicia-transicional/Documents/DEF-Justicia%20en%20Territorio_Digital_26062024.pdf.
[3] Mirrlees-Black, C. and D. Bellerose (2024), “A guide to census-based indicators to estimate demand for public legal assistance services”, Justice Methods, No. 11, Law and Justice Foundation of NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia, https://lawfoundation.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/JM11-Using-Census-Data-2024.pdf.
[2] Mirrlees-Black, C. and S. Randell (2017), “Need for legal assistance services: Developing a measure for Australia”, Justice Issues, No. 26, Law and Justice Foundation of NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia, https://lawfoundation.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/10JI_Need-for-legal-assistance-services.-developing-a-measure-for-Australia-Justice-issues-paper-26_2017.pdf.
[22] Mulherin, G. (2023), “Law for Disadvantaged People”, in Michael Legg (ed.), Resolving Civil Disputes, LexisNexis Butterworths Australia.
[23] NATSILS (2025), Homepage, https://www.natsils.org.au/about/.
[8] NCSC (n.d.), Adopting Triage to Transform Family Justice, National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, VA, https://www.ncsc.org/resources-courts/adopting-triage-transform-family-justice.
[33] New South Wales Parliamentary Counsel’s Office (2017), DP2: PCO Plain Language Policy, New South Wales Government, https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/file/dp2-pco_plain_language_policy_160222.pdf.
[17] OECD (2024), Modernistation of the Justice Sector in Portugal, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cbde9a7a-en.
[18] 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.
[24] Piconne T. (2019), Peace with Justice: The Colombian Experience with Transitional Justice, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/FP_20190708_colombia.pdf.
[34] Polish Code of Criminal Procedure (2023), Article 185e, as amended by the Act of 13 January 2023 (Dz.U. 2023, poz. 289).
[39] Polish Journal of Laws of 2023 (2018), Poland, Act of 6 March 2018, item 1668.
[21] Roelen, K. and R. Sabates-Wheeler (2012), “A child-sensitive approach to social protection: Serving practical and strategic needs”, Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, Vol. 20/3, https://gsdrc.org/document-library/a-child-sensitive-approach-to-social-protection-serving-practical-and-strategic-needs.
[16] UNDP and UNODC (2016), Global Study on Legal Aid: Global Report, United Nations, https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/LegalAid/Global_Study_on_Legal_Aid_-_FINAL.pdf.
[15] van der Lans, F., S. Peters and J. Verdonschot (2023), National Report ILAG Harvard 2023: The Netherlands, Legal Aid Board, ’s-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands, https://clp.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Netherlands-National-Report-ILAG-Conference-2023.pdf.
[4] World Bank (2015), “Better access to justice services in Colombia”, web page, https://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2015/09/22/better-access-to-justice-services-in-colombia#:~:text=The%20first%20National%20Unmet%20Justice,maintenance%20plans%2C%20ensuring%20its%20longevity.