The Economics of Court Technology

In June 2020 Los Angeles Superior Court announced the “LACourtConnect” program to facilitate web/video/audio appearance.  It is among many efforts to enable remote court access.  But there is more about this that is important that I will discuss below.

---

I will state the obvious. Courts and court technology need funding to provide services.  While sometimes grants or even private donations are obtained by courts, the funding that we can count on comes from legislative/executive budget appropriations and, fees.  

We have written about court funding in the past recognizing that since the time of King John in England, courts were expected to help to pay for themselves via fees.  The benefit of this type of funding is that in some examples the courts can allocate this money more quickly.

“Building the case for financing justice” was the theme at the Innovating Justice Forum (https://innovatingjusticeforum.hiil.org/ ) in The Hague, the Netherlands held in early February 2020 (remember that time?).  HiiL has posted a summary of the highlights from the meeting here that narrowed the question to “people-centered” justice services.

The report in summary said:

1. There is a need for smart investment in data-driven, needs-based and adaptable innovation that creates a multiplier effect
2. Not necessary to be tech
3. Inter-agency collaboration
4. Resolving justice problems can save money
5. International and local investors want to see the efficiency
6. Community justice funds from private actors are a viable form of responsible investment

LACourtConnect is a great project that addresses all the items above since it provides access to justice services via improved collaboration and efficiency.  The key is that businesses are willing to pay for efficiency which in turn increases profit.  Also, as item 4 notes, resolving justice problems can save money.  Therefore E-filing is a successful example. 

 

The point is that by solving business and court efficiency problems, fee-based services can provide the courts and governments with the financial resources to pay for free self-service applications.  Ergo, programs that focus only on the indigent, or look only for grant funding, without considering the entire court technology economy has most often failures because systems meet many needs.