Introduction

In this final chapter we discuss our empirical findings through the theoretical lenses introduced in Chapters 1 and 2. Our focus is on the user (help-seeker), how they access online processes and what shapes their perceptions of these processes. We set out to argue for a broader understanding of access to justice, to include non-legal actors, and to take into consideration vulnerabilities; ensuring access to justice extends to all members of society, not just those who are legally and technically capable. The current access to justice framework, which is heavily focused on legal tradition and legal confines, must evolve to be more inclusive and consider the needs of non-expert individuals. For example, the traditional design of courthouses has not considered the needs of lay users (Mulcahy and Rowden 2020), and as we move towards an increasingly digitalized justice system, it is crucial that access to justice is safeguarded for all (Denvir and Selvarajah 2022; Mentovich et al 2023). Online justice presents both opportunities and challenges (Schmitz 2019), and it is vital that we proactively address these to ensure that the justice system is accessible to all. Moreover, access to justice is a personal journey, and it is imperative to recognize that individuals may have unique emotional responses that cannot be solely attributed to their level of digital capabilities. The distinctions between in-person and online experiences further complicate this process, as emotions can vary greatly in each scenario. The online setting can prompt emotional responses, even if one has support from a lawyer or an advocate (Hou et al 2017).

We advanced the theoretical scholarship on, and methodological approach to, legal consciousness through the lenses of digital legal consciousness (Creutzfeldt 2021) and procedural justice (Creutzfeldt and Bradford 2016) to secure a better understanding of what the online system expects of people; what people expect from the online system, and how they make sense of it. We discuss this in four parts. First, we propose a model that better represents an inclusive idea of access to (online) justice. We do this by bringing theories from different disciplines together to think about digital journeys.