Earlier this year, the Online Procedure Rule Committee (OPRC) consulted on a draft inclusion framework and pre-action model. The draft inclusion framework set out design principles and standards with a view to making sure that all users, especially those at risk of exclusion, can access and engage with digital justice services. Key features included user-centred design, plain language and robust data collection to measure inclusion outcomes. The draft pre-action model outlined guidance for online legal information, advice, and dispute-resolution services. It sought to promote early, fair, and efficient resolution of disputes outside of court and aims to unify standards across digital platforms. It also included principles for user conduct and provider responsibilities such as transparency, accessibility, data privacy, and referral protocols. In addition, it proposed technical and data standards to support smooth transitions between services and the wider digital justice system.
The OPRC has now published the outcome of the consultation. It received 47 responses from the public, advice sector organisations, service providers, legal representative bodies, public interest groups, ombudsman organisations and members of the judiciary.
The responses demonstrated broad support for the objectives and aims of the draft Inclusion Framework and Pre Action Model. However, there were differing views on how those objectives and aims are best achieved which the committee will need to consider fully. The responses were across various themes as set out below.
Access to justice
Overall, responses showed broad support for the aims of the OPRC in improving access to justice, embedding early dispute resolution, and setting consistent digital and data standards. Most respondents welcomed the ambition to create a fair, accessible, and inclusive justice system, while urging that the framework remains proportionate, user-centred, and supportive of innovation rather than prescriptive or burdensome.
Inclusion
A recurring theme was accessibility and inclusion. Many respondents endorsed proposals to strengthen accessibility through practical measures such as providing multiple digital formats, speech-to-text options, and adjustable visual settings for colour-blind users. However, several organisations cautioned that accessibility should go beyond physical or sensory needs to include neurodivergent individuals, people with limited digital skills, those for whom English is a second language, and users with learning difficulties. There was strong support for user-centred design and testing, to ensure that systems reflect the needs, experiences and legal capability of real users rather than assumptions about them.
An additional theme was around the definition and scope of ‘inclusion’ and subsequently the scope of the framework. Some respondents expressed concern that if the framework is too extensive, providers will struggle to comply with it. Others suggested that some elements of the framework duplicated other regulatory frameworks and therefore questioned whether the framework should apply to law firms or mediation bodies which are already subject to regulation.
User empowerment
Some respondents expressed concern that too much choice can become a barrier for users in accessing justice. Several people said that users might be better served by a clear, government-provided route rather than a proliferation of competing options. A recurring theme was the need to balance user autonomy and choice with clarity and simplicity of access.
Oversight of the Digital Justice System
Other key themes were oversight, accountability, and enforceability. Respondents emphasised the importance of strong monitoring mechanisms and clear definitions (such as for ‘service provider’) within the framework. Some respondents suggested the OPRC should have either direct supervisory powers or should work closely with existing regulators and ombudsman schemes to ensure standards are met. There was a repeated call for transparency through publication of data, enabling public scrutiny and informed decision-making. Some respondents warned that without sufficient accountability, frameworks risk becoming aspirational rather than operational.
Standards
Several responses highlighted the need to ensure standards do not become overly onerous, particularly for small firms, start-ups, and public sector providers. Heavy compliance requirements may stifle innovation, limit participation, or deter new entrants. Standards should be designed to raise quality and improve access to justice without restricting diversity or competition. Several respondents called for a proportionate approach to enforcement, tailored to provider size and capacity.
Collaboration
Many responses referenced the importance of collaboration between the OPRC, government, private providers, ombudsman schemes, and civil society to ensure frameworks are both practical and effective. Several organisations highlighted their willingness to share experience and technical insight, especially where digital systems have already been implemented successfully.
Conclusion and next steps
There is support for the vision of a more inclusive, digital, and user-friendly justice system, but respondents identified the need for clarity, proportionality, and collaboration in development and implementation. The OPRC will set out next steps in early 2026.
