Sentences with phrase «justice system users»

Known for doing things differently, Millennials are digital natives that are the next generation of justice system users and legal professionals.

In my last post for Slaw I wrote about the importance of creating the conditions for justice innovation by building the skills needed to work in multidisciplinary teams and collaborate rather than «consult» with justice system users.

The background, identity, and social location of lawyers (and ultimately judges) matter because they inform their values and perspectives, and determine how they understand the circumstances of justice system users.

The new normal — which I believe to be largely the consequence of the increasingly loud and consistent voices of justice system users — challenges the The New Lawyer to commit to genuinely respect clients, to pay careful attention to their needs, concerns, and financial limits, and to consider them true collaborative partners.

These numbers will continue to rise making this next generation of justice system users and legal professionals central to access to justice improvements — those aimed at modernization, user - experience and beyond.

Not exact matches

As a key stakeholder and member of our Service Users Interest Group, FNF are able to influence and comment on current developments within CAFCASS and the family justice system as a whole.

«So we will develop diversionary programmes to take users out of the criminal justice system altogether, ensure that those who need treatment get it, and find more effective ways to reduce or end their drug use.

Users either receive authorization from FMCSA to access CDLIS, or may receive it, if they are law enforcement agencies, from their State's criminal justice information system (CJIS), for enforcing FMCSA CDL regulations as part of their official duties [e.g., State officials enforcing regulations in support of the FMCSA Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP)-RSB-.

Review how incidents where people on bikes are killed or seriously injured are investigated and prosecuted to give all road users the confidence that the justice system will protect them.

Increasingly, reform efforts are also involving users in recognition of the need to design a user - centred justice system.

This involves taking an ««improvement approach» that engages the user's perspective, is multi-disciplinary, experimental and recognizes that users of the [justice] system are partners in improving it.»

Is it enough for justice insiders to take their own understanding of the client experience into account or to invite one or more «users» of the system to participate in reform discussions?

The very design of the justice system is such that is difficult to negotiate unless one has a law degree; the very design puts up obstacles to common users.

New online courts for civil cases designed to help make the justice system more user - friendly could be introduced,...

«Technology has the potential to enhance our system of justice and to provide greater convenience to some court users.

Why is the idea of asking service users what they need in terms of access to justice so challenging to those working in the justice system?

This does not mean that I think that a strong settlement culture is any less important now than then — and clearly there is still a great deal of work to be done there that is integral to modernizing the justice system and responding to user needs and goals — but I have found my attention shifting to more fundamental questions of client service.

We're taking the perspectives of users of the system and justice workers.

«These are ambitious, innovative and exciting plans and I believe they could make the justice system simpler and more user - friendly.»

However, it must be borne in mind that the justice system is not our system, a system for judges and lawyers, but their system, a system that belongs to the users of the system, the litigants themselves.

This Special Issue captures the emphasis on the needs and expectations of users of the civil justice system.

Media coverage both reflects and fuels a growing belief that our civil and family justice system is in crisis that spans users, legal service providers and governmental policy - makers.

And then there's the legal AI systems that allow individuals to gain access to justice, via provision of legal knowledge and guidance, or that help the user to complete legal forms without the immediate input of lawyers.

One of the issues for those developing ODR systems for small claims, as recognised both in the Ministry of Justice Transforming our Justice System and the earlier Briggs report, is the level of assistance to be given to users before they pay their money and enter the court sSystem and the earlier Briggs report, is the level of assistance to be given to users before they pay their money and enter the court systemsystem.

Justice Brown does have some proposals for change, and again many of this echoe what we have been hearing from those less schooled in such matters — the users of the system themselves.

Maybe it's time to remember that the justice system we cherish and in which we thrive isn't our system, the system of judges, lawyers and paralegals, but the system of the people, the litigants who are its users and beneficiaries.

Litigants are less actors in court than users or consumers of the justice system.

I think it's different to undertake rigorous user testing, when you're developing software in a public justice system, versus a private software company, the [inaudible 00: 26: 27] market for example.

The data you really need concerns the needs and experiences of users of the justice system.

He said the lack of spending has resulted in paper - based and physically outdated and even decrepit courthouses «that operate in the stone age» and a justice system in all fields — from civil and criminal to family law — that users describe as «archaic,» «outdated» and «slow.»

Unless we can make real and significant progress in simplifying legal language and providing accessible and understandable materials to non-lawyer users of the justice system, we can not move access to justice forward in any tangible way.

In this respect, the report observes that to understand the factors that impede or facilitate access to justice, it is essential for researchers to be able to engage with users of the justice system.

101 Ways to Improve State Legal Systems: A User's Guide to Promoting Fair and Effective Civil Justice - FIFTH EDITION 2017

101 Ways to Improve State Legal Systems: A User's Guide to Promoting Fair and Effective Civil Justice

National coordination is in service of the common goal of making a larger amount of useful data more readily available to empirical researchers in order to enhance the capacity of justice systems to empirically measure program performance and evaluate user outcomes.

Many previous reports including the 1996 CBA Systems of Civil Justice Task Force Report have highlighted the need for a user focus.

I won't go into the details of that workshop as it has been previously written about here, but, in short, our stakeholders (and now our partners) were interested in learning about the innovation tools they might use to help them respond to the needs of users in the family justice system.

In our view, it is difficult to reconcile the Supreme Court of Canada's 1988 decision in BCGEU v. British Columbia (Attorney General), confirming that every Canadian citizen has the fundamental right to unimpeded access to the courts, with the notion of Canada's superior courts operating as a default user - pay system of justice, subject to an individual establishing an entitlement to an exemption from court fees.

However the launch of BC's online Civil Resolution Tribunal, and the user - centric design process that created it, has renewed my optimism re public sector justice system innovation.

The big barriers to innovation seem to be (in no particular order): lack of data about the needs and experiences of users of justice systems; the natural monopoly of judges and lawyers; the challenge of developing the smart public - private partnerships that innovation needs; limited or no access to finance.

These services represent an attempt to modernize the justice system through a focus on meeting citizen needs, user satisfaction, and continuous improvement through innovation.

Participants explored the justice system from the «user» perspective and approach access to justice as a hands - on design challenge — they gathered the information needed on how the justice system works, imagined how best to respond to the gaps and weaknesses of the current system, and had to develop a prototype that will improve it.

«Each of these initiatives are working to make our justice system more accessible and user friendly.

Will unbundled services make a difference to users of the civil justice system?

What is unique about A2JBC is that it seeks to impact access to justice by creating a network of justice system stakeholders to align around strategies that are collaborative, user - centred, experimental and evidence - informed.

But from its beginning, A2JBC recognized that to be effective it needed to broaden its perspective and so it invited participation from other sectors (such as health and municipal government), organizations serving users of the justice system (such as Disability Alliance BC and MOSAIC), and users of the family and civil justice system.

Looking at the justice system from the point of view of the users of the system has the potential to be transformative.

People who work in other sectors, and professionals from other disciplines, have important insights and expertise that will help justice system stakeholders figure out how best to accommodate the non-legal needs of users of the justice system.

The commitment to work in partnership with system users underlies A2JBC's dialogue with the BC Aboriginal Justice Council.

From September 2014 — September 2015 researchers at the Winkler Institute for Dispute Resolution conducted over 30 interviews and 5 focus groups with justice stakeholders including lawyers, legal educators, legal entrepreneurs, legal clinic staff, policy makers, governments, judges, trusted intermediaries and users, in order to gain insight into how we might build capacity for innovation within the civil justice system and what specific innovations are required.