2020] A. Blechová, P. Loutocký: Online Courts and the Future of Justice ...

329

DOI 10.5817/MUJLT2020-2-9

ONLINE COURTS AND

THE FUTURE OF JUSTICE. SUSSKIND, R. E.
by

ANNA BLECHOVÁ*, PAVEL LOUTOCKÝ**

Susskind, R. E. (2019) Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 368 p.

1. INTRODUCTION
“More people in the world now have access to the internet than access
to justice. According to OECD, only 46 per cent of human beings live under
the protection of the law.“1, 2

This statement could be seen as the main reason, why the treatise such
as Online Courts and the Future of Justice is more than actual. Richard E.
Susskind dedicated almost four decades to the work and research
on the utilization of technology within the courts, which is also proven
by his plentiful publication activity.3
In the introduction of the book, the author is pointing out that the topic
of online courts is stirring some emotions especially in legal circles because
of its conservative environment. Since it is thorny issue, it is crucial to keep

*
[email protected], master student of the Faculty of Law, Masaryk University, The Czech
Republic.
**
[email protected], legal specialist and post doc at the Institute of Law and Technology,
Faculty of Law, Masaryk University, lawyer and research specialist at Faculty
of Informatics, Masaryk University, The Czech Republic.
1
According to Statista.com, 59 % of the global population has access to the Internet. Clement,
J. (2020) Worldwide digital population as of July 2020. [online] Available from: https://www.
statista.com/statistics/617136/digital-population-worldwide/ [Accessed 1 August 2020].
2
Susskind, R. (2019) Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
p. 27.
3
For example, Susskind, R. (1996) The Future of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press;
Susskind, R. (2000) Transforming the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Susskind, R.
(2017) Tomorrow's Lawyers. Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
330 Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology [Vol. 14:2

an open mind about approach to the topic.4 Susskind’s book is in fact not
about replacing human judges by the computer ones but about exploring
the potential of the online courts – online decision-making process,5
extension of the courts and digital transformation of the court system
to better serve the public. The improvement of the access to the courts
should be seen as the main philosophy of the online courts. According
to Susskind’s idea of online courts, he recommends firstly to focus
on the minor conflicts (especially low-value civil disputes). Subsequently
the knowledge would be transferred to more challenging tasks (criminal
law disputes or “hard cases”6).
The book is divided into four parts. The first part is called Court and
Justice, and it explains what is the purpose and value of court systems,
the access to justice, if it is time to make a change and how to use
technology to reach these goals. The second part of the book is called Is
Court Service or a Place? and it is developing the central vision of the book –
the idea of the architecture of online courts. The third part is focusing
on obstacles when building online courts and it is called The Case Against.
The most innovative part is the last one which is called The Future. In this
review, we are respecting the order of the book and our comments and
observations follow the same structure.

2. COURT AND JUSTICE

The importance of the courts is significant and the author of the book is
emphasising it by the explanation of the jurisprudential function and
constitutional significance.7 The motivation for innovating the court system
is however not only because of the fact that in some jurisdictions it is under
staggering backlogs, but also because the justice should be available
to everyone.8 Susskind is stating that the ways how to change rooted system

4
Susskind, R. (2019) Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
p. 3.
5
According to Susskind’s opinion, understanding online judging involves determination
of cases by human judges but not in physical courtrooms. He is also mostly trying
to exclude a videoconferencing, or any other synchronous communication and he is
favouring written submissions. Moreover, online judging shall be (by his opinion)
conducted via online platform where all the evidences and arguments will be submitted
and subsequently the decision will be delivered. Op. cit., pp. 116–117.
6
To see more on that: Dworkin, R. (1975) Hard Cases. Harvard Law Review, 88 (6), p. 1060
et seq.
7
Susskind, R. (2019) Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp. 19–25.
8
Op. cit., pp. 27–29.
2020] A. Blechová, P. Loutocký: Online Courts and the Future of Justice ... 331

are two – automatization of known operations and transformation

of processes.9 The first mentioned method is about changing the repetitive,
routine tasks in the way that humans will be able to focus on more
challenging aspects and they will not be overloaded by routine.
The transformation of processes is then targeting revolutionary scenarios
like creating an online court. Susskind’s idea of online court(s) consists
of the virtual instrument which would be based on textual description
of the dispute only.10 The decisions then would be (still) made by the human
judge, however in cooperation with predictive systems. Even though this
technology will be able to save time, money and human resources, it is also
important to mention its drawbacks.
The author of the book is aware of some of them, but he is not paying
enough attention, in our opinion, for example to biases11 in more complex
way, technological aspect of the issue, partly open texture of the law
or the level of quality of written submissions.12 We would thus stress out
(not only in connection with online courts) that especially the connection
and cooperation between the lawyers and computer scientists will be crucial
in the future (and it is crucial already in the moment).
If, according to Susskind’s model, online courts will be developed, it will
mean that algorithm will help with the preparing the case, predicting
the possible outcome, evaluating inserted data. Human beings, judges
included, are biased. The architecture of prediction algorithms is by default
unbiased since it is just code without feelings, memories, cultural
background or knowledge of history (if the algorithm is biased it is not
the fault of the system but of its creator).13 Similar applies also
to the processed datasets. The de-biasing of the dataset is theoretically
possible and, in our opinion, if the system will be free of such defects, it will

9
Op. cit., p. 34.
10
Op. cit., p. 60.
11
Završnik, A. (2019) Algorithmic justice: Algorithms and big data in criminal justice setting.
European Journal of Criminology, 20 (1). [online] Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com
/doi/pdf/10.1177/1477370819876762 [Accessed 1 August 2020].
12
To see more on these issues e.g.: Scherer, M. (2019) Artificial Intelligence and Legal
Decision-Making: The Wide Open? Journal of International Arbitration, 36 (5), p. 554 et seq.;
Surden, H. (2018) Machine Learning and Law. Washington Law Review, 89 (1), p. 105;
or historically D’Amato, A. (1977) Can/Should Computers Replace Judges? Georgia Law
Review, 11, p. 1300 et seq.
13
Završnik, A. (2019) Algorithmic justice: Algorithms and big data in criminal justice setting.
European Journal of Criminology, 20 (1), p. 11. [online] Available from: https://journals.sage
pub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1477370819876762 [Accessed 1 August 2020].
332 Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology [Vol. 14:2

be potentially able (and will be prepared) to offer more transparent and

objective outputs.
According to Caliskan, Bryson and Narayanan also the language itself is
naturally biased.14 This means that since one of the inputs (the language) is
by its nature biased it is almost impossible to have an unbiased product
at the end. Moreover, there is a dilemma concerns whether de-biasing is
desirable. One aspect is the architecture of the de-biasing procedure
(“cleaning algorithm”), the second aspect to decide what is exactly a bias
(or which part of algorithm / dataset is biased). This entails a series
of inherent “political” decisions which will answer the questions as to what
should be “cleaned”, what is sexist, which word is unacceptable. 15 These
questions and problems are unfortunately resonating in the book just under
the lines and Susskind is not focusing on them. Nevertheless, in our opinion
these are very important because of the previously mentioned fact that
the law (and generally the language even more) has open texture and
character.
Susskind is mentioning the prejudice of the legal practitioners who are
against the transformation of the system.16 These people are, in our eyes, not
open-minded enough to the concept of online courts. Nevertheless, more
interesting point is the bias of the machine involved, which is not
sufficiently mentioned in the book.
As further mentioned in the book, the online courts are built
on the written submissions – this could however collide with the idea
of access to justice. The author understands access to justice as much more
than providing faster, cheaper and less combative mechanism for resolving
disputes. Susskind claims that the system of online courts could help
to avoid disputes and could have a greater insight into the benefits that
the law can confer. Citizens in the future will be able to own and manage
their legal disputes at online courts (write submissions, manage the dispute
without the intervention of somebody else). The access to justice will thus

14
Caliskan, A., Bryson, J. J., Narayanan, A. (2017) Semantics derived automatically from
language corpora contain human-like biases. Science, 356 (6334), p. 185. [online] Available
from: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/356/6334/183.full.pdf [Accessed 1 August
2020].
15
Završnik, A. (2019) Algorithmic justice: Algorithms and big data in criminal justice setting.
European Journal of Criminology, 20 (1), p. 11. [online] Available from: https://journals.sage
pub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1477370819876762 [Accessed 1 August 2020].
16
Susskind, R. (2019) Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
p. 44.
2020] A. Blechová, P. Loutocký: Online Courts and the Future of Justice ... 333

increase,17 also because such submissions and using online courts is only
a possibility not obligation. 18 Nevertheless, we think that this idea could be
met only if the laypeople would be able to write and manage their
submissions effectively. But that could be a difficult task. The main issues
are the use of accurate language and “evaluating” or “presenting”
the evidence. Laypeople are not trained to identify which information could
be relevant and which is not. The solution to that problem could be some
assistance offered by the online court (guide, documentation or personal
assistance).

3. IS COURT A SERVICE OR A PLACE?

One of the important questions of the book is If the Court is a Service
or a Place? The answer to this question is a crucial element for digitalisation
and Susskind sees it as a service.
The architecture of the innovative court system by Susskind is, without
a doubt, unique. He is describing a four-layer model which includes three
tiers.19 Firstly, there is a layer of “dispute resolution”. In this layer, it is
possible to find traditional courts, virtual hearings. The second layer is
“dispute containment”, which contains mainly alternative ways to settle
the dispute and tools connected with classical understanding of online
dispute resolution (ODR). The other two layers are “dispute avoidance” and
“legal health promotion”, and they have no plausible equivalent in current
legal systems.20
The tiers are divided by Susskind into the Tier 1, the Tier 2 and the Tier 3.
The aim of the Tier 1 is to organise and classify the problems of the people.
Some of the goals of this tier are to help laypeople to fully understand their
problem, rights and duties and also to guide them through possible
remedies available to them.21 This aim could be fulfilled via the system
of decision trees. It is important to mention that we already have a tool that
could help the courts with such a task – Susskind is using a concrete

17
Op. cit., p. 70.
18
This has been already proven in out-of-court online dispute resolution. To see more on that:
Loutocký, P. (2016) Online Dispute Resolution to Resolve Consumer Disputes from
the perspective of European Union Law: Is the Potential of ODR Fully Used? Masaryk
University Journal of Law and Technology, 10 (1), pp. 113–127.
19
Susskind, R. (2019) Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp. 113–119.
20
Op. cit., pp. 113–116.
21
Op. cit., pp. 117–118.
334 Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology [Vol. 14:2

example of Resolver.22, 23 Tier 1 is more about giving a legal advice, which is

not compatible with the typical agenda of courts. There is an objective
reason to assume that the private sector would be involved in Tier 1
as well.24
Tier 2 is containing a dispute resolution but necessarily not only with
the involvement of a judge. The central figure of this tier is a “case officer”.
This person will be trying to settle the dispute (to help achieving
the agreement). Case officer would act as a mediator and their main goal
would be to prevent the litigation and settle and manage the dispute.
Susskind is emphasising that they should not act as “lite” judges,25 however,
it is questionable if it is possible to fulfil this condition. The case officers will
probably need a legal education at least on some level. The principle of Tier
2 has been already used in the court system of England and Wales for
online civil money claims and also by Canadian Civil Resolution Tribunal.26
Suggested tools and principles in Tier 1 and Tier 2 are exceeding
the scope of the current court system and also their time and human sources
in the moment. Prevention should be however better than ex post reaction,
and well-set system of Tier 1 and Tier 2 will be able to reduce
the involvement of judges in many cases, thus transformation of the court
capacities is important.27 Conversely, the easy access and affordability
of justice through Tier 1 and Tier 2 could trigger an enormous interest
in litigations. Moreover, if the tiers would not be appropriately set,
the system will collapse.28 This is however not primarily a disadvantage and
we see the great potential in ODR tools, where it is proven, that rising
number of disputes does not lead to limiting the resolution but helps
the users not to be afraid of dealing with their problems. 29 Also already
working scenarios (e.g. Civil Resolution Tribunal in Canada) prove that Tier 1

22
Op. cit., p. 126.
23
For example, Resolver. [online] Available from: https://www.resolver.co.uk
[Accessed 1 August 2020].
24
Susskind, R. (2019) Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp. 127–128.
25
Op. cit., p. 137.
26
For example Civil Resolution Tribunal. [online] Available from: https://civilresolutionbc.ca/
[Accessed 1 August 2020].
27
Susskind, R. (2019) Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
p. 141.
28
The author of the book is opposing this argument in chapter 22. Op. cit. pp. 224–226.
29
Rule, C. (2012) Quantifying the Economic Benefits of Effective Redress: Large E-Commerce
Data Sets and the Cost-Benefit Case for Investing In Dispute Resolution. University
of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review, 24 (4), p. 772 et seq.
2020] A. Blechová, P. Loutocký: Online Courts and the Future of Justice ... 335

and Tier 2 can eliminate (even by involving the negotiation phase between
the parties) many simple cases and the court (and especially the judges
themselves) is only dealing with fraction of the initiated cases.30
Last tier is described as the online litigation, which involves a human
judge. Nevertheless, the dispute should be still completely led online and
based on written submissions.31
There are concerns that judging online is not possible. This argument is
supported by the cases like The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens.32 “Hard cases”
containing moral dilemmas or difficult ethical questions require special
attention. Online courts are according to Susskind primarily focused
on quick settlement of “easy” cases. This approach will let human judges
to focus just on hard cases. The question is if the system will be able
to distinguish in Tier 1 between the “hard” and “easy” cases.33
In the last chapter of this part, Susskind introduces the successful projects
similar to online courts. He is mentioning examples like systems in China,
Australia, Canada or England and Wales.34 On the other hand, the author is
surprisingly ignoring situation within the European Union, for example
approaches in Denmark or Estonia.35

30
Almost 85 % of the cases were resolved in Tier 1 and Tier 2 by Civil Resolution Tribunal.
Rozenberg, J. The Civil Resolution Tribunal. The Online Court: will IT work? The Legal
Education Foundation. [online] Available from: https://long-reads.thelegaleducation
foundation.org/ [Accessed 1 August 2020].
31
For the first generation of online courts, there would be no involvement of “AI” judges
or predictive systems in the Tier 3. However, the Tier 3 has potential space for it in the next
generations of online courts.
32
Dudley and Stephenson is an English criminal law case, which is challenging the justification
of cannibalism. The main idea of the case is if it is murder of fellow crew member justifiable
under specific circumstances or not. Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Q.B.D. 273 (1884).
[online] Available from: https://cyber.harvard.edu/eon/ei/elabs/majesty/stephens.html
[Accessed 1 August 2020].
33
Susskind, R. (2019) Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp. 146–147.
34
Op. cit., pp. 165–176.
35
See CEPEJ European Ethical Charter on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in judicial
systems and their environment. [online] Available from: https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/
cepej-european-ethical-charter-on-the-use-of-artificial-intelligence-ai-in-judicial-systems-
and-their-environment [Accessed 1 August 2020]; or Justice of the future: predictive justice
and artificial intelligence. [online] Available from: https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/justice-
of-the-future-predictive-justice-and-artificial-intelligence [Accessed 1 August 2020];
Vasdani, T. (2019) From Estonian AI judges to robot mediators in Canada, U.K. LexisNexis.
[online] Available from: https://www.lexisnexis.ca/en-ca/ihc/2019-06/from-estonian-ai-
judges-to-robot-mediators-in-canada-uk.page [Accessed 1 August 2020]; Numa, A. (2020)
Artificial intelligence as the new reality of e-justice. [online] Available from: https://e-estonia.
com/artificial-intelligence-as-the-new-reality-of-e-justice/ [Accessed 1 August 2020];
Danmarks Domstole. [online] Available from: https://www.minretssag.dk/frontpage
[Accessed 1 August 2020].
336 Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology [Vol. 14:2

The main criticism to this part of the book is the lack of the technological
aspect. The author is introducing his vision of the online court system, but
he is not focusing on the technologies he suggests to involve.

4. THE CASE AGAINST

Since online courts are quite a sensitive topic, Susskind is pre-empting
the possible opposing arguments by dedicating a whole part III of the book
to this topic. This part of the book is in our view very important as it is
trying to break traditional stereotypes connected with use of the online
technologies in the justice. The author of the book is discussing issues
as economy-class justice, transparency, human face of justice, fair trial,
digital exclusion, public sector technology and jurisprudential miscellany.
However, especially this part of the book is just scratching the surface.
Susskind is not dealing with each problem in depth.
Another topic is the human face of justice. Question is if we need
a contact with human being judge from flesh and bones, or it would be
possible to accept a decision through the computer. This is more
a psychology question than legal one, but still, it should be at least partly
considered. The human element in justice in online courts is in the book
compared to the online psychotherapy sessions. Susskind is arguing through
psychotherapist Yalom that when text psychotherapy could be such
a success, online courts would be the same.36, 37 Understandably, patients
of psychotherapy are preferring texting over videoconferencing or calling.
The texting is giving them a time to think about their message and they can
hide behind their phones or computer. The comparison to psychotherapy is
however in our opinion unfortunate. Psychotherapy is not litigation.
The main purpose of the court system is finding the justice and it is crucial
that the judge will be able to find it. According to acquisition
of information, the human judge or psychotherapist could reach some
information via body language or immediate responses. In the online court
system, this would not be possible anymore.
On the other hand, the potential dispute settlement online has been
already discovered by some private providers of ODR (it seems more

36
Yalom, I. (2017) Becoming Myself: A Psychiatrist's Memoir. Basic Books, p. 306.
37
Susskind, R. (2019) Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp. 210–214.
2020] A. Blechová, P. Loutocký: Online Courts and the Future of Justice ... 337

important to offer the solution than to meet face to face)38; these aspects are
however not mentioned in the book.39
The last topic we would like to mention is the digital exclusion.
According to Susskind, objection to online courts is that many people do not
have access to the Internet, or they do not have a necessary level
of computer literacy.40 Nevertheless, he is emptying this argument
by the fact that even non-users of the Internet are indirect beneficiaries
of the internet.41 He suggests that less confident users should be assisted
by online guidance, which will solve the problem with the lack of computer
literacy. To support his conclusion, Susskind mentions several statistics.42
Even though Susskind’s argumentation seems convincing we are critical
about it. Firstly, Susskind relies on statistics and data relevant only
to the United Kingdom. Secondly, he overlooks the digital skills gap
in Europe.43 Lastly, Susskind is not making any difference between
consuming the social media and using an online court.

5. THE FUTURE
The last part of the book is dedicated to the emerging technologies, AI,
computer judges and the global challenge. As the author mentions this final
part is about his predictions. 44 This approach caused the fact that some
of his ideas are not supported by any relevant source. The author
of the book is firstly exploring the emerging technologies as telepresence,
augmented reality or advanced ODR. He believes that these technologies
could be used in the current courtrooms.45
Another chapter is dedicated to the artificial intelligence (AI) and its
impact to future of online courts. Even though Susskind is highlighting that
38
Rule, C. (2012) Quantifying the Economic Benefits of Effective Redress: Large E-Commerce
Data Sets and the Cost-Benefit Case for Investing in Dispute Resolution. University
of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review, 24 (4), pp. 767–777, p. 772 et seq.
39
To see more on that: Loutocký, P. (2019) Online Dispute Resolution as an Inspiration for
Contemporary Justice. Jusletter IT. Die Zeitschrift für IT und Recht, pp. 1–8, p. 2 et seq.
40
Susskind, R. (2019) Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
p. 215.
41
Op. cit., p. 216.
42
Op. cit., pp. 216–218.
43
According to data from 2017 “[…] 169 million Europeans between 16 and 74 years – 44 % – do
not have basic digital skills.“ DG Connect, “The Digital skills Gap in Europe”, Digital Single
Market. [online] Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/digital-
skills-gap-europe [Accessed 1 August 2020].
44
Susskind, R. (2019) Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
p. 253.
45
Cisco’s telepresence, op. cit., pp. 255–258.
338 Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology [Vol. 14:2

he has been focusing his research to AI and law, he is not consistent and
specific about the “AI“ systems he is proposing to use for example
in the Tier 3. He is briefly describing the different concepts of AI, its history
and breakthroughs, but he is not explaining how the AI works.46 We
consider this lack of explanation of technological aspect and clear definition
of AI as shortcoming of the book.
Subsequently, the author points out the “AI fallacy”; the view that only
way to get machines to outperform the best human lawyers is to copy
the way that human lawyers work. He claims that this is not a good
approach to AI in this context.47 We think that such author’s idea is exciting,
but since the programmers of AI will be humans, it is challenging
to imagine how AI could overcome this problem. Humans will program
the machine in the way how humans understand the law and legal
procedures. If we are then talking about different view (using neuron
networks or quantum computing), this should be introduced in the book
(and not ignored).
Penultimate chapter of the book is about the computer judge. Susskind is
examining the question Can machines replace human judges?, but he is not
giving a clear answer to it.48 Nevertheless, he is more focusing on prediction
machines. Even though, Susskind is dealing with moral boundaries of AI
replacing judges he is not mentioning the moral boundaries of predictive
systems. He also barely writes about bias problems of these systems49 and
he is ignoring their deficiencies, for example racial profiling 50, privacy
threads51 or misunderstanding of causal relationships52.

6. CONCLUSION
The Online Court and the Future of Justice is a great and complex introduction
and a guide to the topic. Susskind is mentioning many of his bright ideas
46
Op. cit., pp. 263–272.
47
Op. cit., pp. 272–273.
48
Op. cit., pp. 278–281.
49
Op. cit., p. 289.
50
Crawford, K., Schultz, J. (2013) Big Data and Due Process: Toward a Framework to Redress
Predictive Privacy Harms. Boston College Law Review, 55 (93). [online] Available from:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2325784 [Accessed 1 August 2020].
51
Stroud, M. (2014) The minority report: Chicago's new police computer predicts crimes, but is it
racist? The Verge. [online] Available from: https://www.theverge.com/2014/2/19/5419854/
the-minority-report-this-computer-predicts-crime-but-is-it-racist [Accessed 1 August 2020].
52
Sgaier, S., Huang, V., Charles, G. (2020) The Case for Causal AI. Stanford Social Innovation
review, 18 (3). [online] Available from: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_case_for_causal_ai#
[Accessed 1 August 2020].
2020] A. Blechová, P. Loutocký: Online Courts and the Future of Justice ... 339

and experiences and the language of the book is accessible for general
public. The book is easy to read and easy to understand which is hard
to achieve in such a complex topic.
Despite that, some of the issues just scratch the surface and the author is
not developing his ideas in a depth. This is however understandable for
the sake of consistency and length of the book. The significant shortcoming
of the book is the lack of the technological aspect of suggested online court
tools and systems. The author of the book is not explaining how the system
will work. Moreover, we believe that since the online courts would be
closely associated with technology, as predictive systems or AI
in the future, it is crucial to dedicate some part of the book to understand
the systems and suggested technologies. In the best scenario this part
of the book should have been a cooperation with computer scientists.
On the other hand, we are convinced that the suggested automatization
and autonomous systems are a step in the right direction. Despite
the criticism, the book is the only complex work on online courts.
In conclusion, if there is any desire to understand the future of justice, we
have to recommend this book as one of the important foundations.

LIST OF REFERENCES
[1] Caliskan, A., Bryson, J. J., Narayanan, A. (2017) Semantics derived automatically from

language corpora contain human-like biases. Science, 356 (6334). [online] Available from:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/356/6334/183.full.pdf [Accessed 1 August 2020].

[2] CEPEJ European Ethical Charter on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in judicial

systems and their environment. [online] Available from: https://www.coe.int/en/web/

cepej/cepej-european-ethical-charter-on-the-use-of-artificial-intelligence-ai-in-judicial-

systems-and-their-environment [Accessed 1 August 2020].

[3] Civil Resolution Tribunal. [online] Available from: https://civilresolutionbc.ca/

[Accessed 1 August 2020].

[4] Clement, J. (2020) Worldwide digital population as of July 2020. [online] Available from:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/617136/digital-population-worldwide/

[Accessed 1 August 2020].

[5] Crawford, K., Schultz, J. (2013) Big Data and Due Process: Toward a Framework

to Redress Predictive Privacy Harms. Boston College Law Review, 55 (93). [online]

Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2325784 [Accessed 1 August 2020].

[6] D’Amato, A. (1977) Can/Should Computers Replace Judges? Georgia Law Review, 11.
340 Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology [Vol. 14:2

[7] Danmarks Domstole. [online] Available from: https://www.minretssag.dk/frontpage

[Accessed 1 August 2020].

[8] DG Connect, “The Digital skills Gap in Europe”, Digital Single Market. [online]

Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/digital-skills-gap-

europe [Accessed 1 August 2020].

[9] Dworkin, R. (1975) Hard Cases. Harvard Law Review, 88 (6).

[10] Justice of the future: predictive justice and artificial intelligence. [online] Available from:

https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/justice-of-the-future-predictive-justice-and-artificial-

intelligence [Accessed 1 August 2020].

[11] Loutocký, P. (2019) Online Dispute Resolution as an Inspiration for Contemporary

Justice. Jusletter IT. Die Zeitschrift für IT und Recht.

[12] Loutocký, P. (2016) Online Dispute Resolution to Resolve Consumer Disputes from

the perspective of European Union Law: Is the Potential of ODR Fully Used? Masaryk

University Journal of Law and Technology, 10 (1).

[13] Numa, A. (2020) Artificial intelligence as the new reality of e-justice. [online] Available from:

https://e-estonia.com/artificial-intelligence-as-the-new-reality-of-e-justice/

[Accessed 1 August 2020].

[14] Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Q.B.D. 273 (1884). [online] Available from: https://cyber.

harvard.edu/eon/ei/elabs/majesty/stephens.html [Accessed 1 August 2020].

[15] Resolver. [online] Available from: https://www.resolver.co.uk [Accessed 1 August 2020].

[16] Rozenberg, J. The Civil Resolution Tribunal. The Online Court: will IT work? The Legal

Education Foundation. [online] Available from: https://long-reads.thelegaleducation

foundation.org/ [Accessed 1 August 2020].

[17] Rule, C. (2012) Quantifying the Economic Benefits of Effective Redress: Large

E-Commerce Data Sets and the Cost-Benefit Case for Investing in Dispute Resolution.

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review, 24 (4).

[18] Scherer, M. (2019) Artificial Intelligence and Legal Decision-Making: The Wide Open?

Journal of International Arbitration, 36 (5).

[19] Sgaier, S., Huang, V., Charles, G. (2020) The Case for Causal AI. Stanford Social Innovation

review, 18 (3). [online] Available from: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_case_for_causal_

ai# [Accessed 1 August 2020].

[20] Stroud, M. (2014) The minority report: Chicago's new police computer predicts crimes, but is it

racist?. The Verge. [online] Available from: https://www.theverge.com/2014/2/19/54198

2020] A. Blechová, P. Loutocký: Online Courts and the Future of Justice ... 341

54/the-minority-report-this-computer-predicts-crime-but-is-it-racist [Accessed 1 August

2020].

[21] Surden, H. (2018) Machine Learning and Law. Washington Law Review, 89 (1).

[22] Susskind, R. (1996) The Future of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[23] Susskind, R. (2000) Transforming the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[24] Susskind, R. (2017) Tomorrow's Lawyers. Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[25] Susskind, R. (2019) Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

[26] Vasdani, T. (2019) From Estonian AI judges to robot mediators in Canada, U.K. LexisNexis.

[online] Available from: https://www.lexisnexis.ca/en-ca/ihc/2019-06/from-estonian-ai-

judges-to-robot-mediators-in-canada-uk.page [Accessed 1 August 2020].

[27] Yalom, I. (2017) Becoming Myself: A Psychiatrist's Memoir. Basic Books.

[28] Završnik, A. (2019) Algorithmic justice: Algorithms and big data in criminal justice

setting. European Journal of Criminology, 20 (1). [online] Available from: https://journals.

sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1477370819876762 [Accessed 1 August 2020].