Home The Gamechangers Platforms offering mandatory one-stop dispute resolution

Platforms offering mandatory one-stop dispute resolution

One-stop shop platforms and procedures integrate information, negotiation, mediation and adjudication aspects of a dispute and also offer support services to the users. They focus on employment, family or another category of civil justice problems.

For all pressing justice problems, agencies exist that already take on information and mediation roles. Ombudsmen and specialised tribunals are functioning. Building on these initiatives, a user-centred design can make cases flow through the different stages of dispute resolution without interruption

Supported online where possible, with mediation solving or defining issues

Judge deciding in problem-solving process

Guided information pathways for negotiation

Can be championed by private or public sectors

Policy Brief

*Building on: integrating mediation in courts, BC Civil Resolution Tribunal, Richard Susskind vision, Rechtwijzer, UAE, Singapore, problem-solving courts for crime, online hearings.

Photo by Keira Burton from Pexels

In what setting?

One-stop shop platforms and procedures that integrate information, negotiation, mediation and adjudication and support are mostly found in high-income countries. Examples include the British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal and employment conflict procedures in the UAE. Ombudsman procedures also may include facilitation and adjudication in the form of (binding) recommendations. Such procedures are most commonly found in higher income countries and their task is usually the limited to the relationship of citizens with government agencies. In some countries, this model is also applied to consumer complaints.

Examples

The Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) in British Columbia provides one-stop resolution processes for four types of disputes. Starting with disputes between neighbours in apartment buildings, the CRT has since introduced procedures for claims below a certain amount, for personal injury claims arising from motor vehicle insurance and for disputes in societies and cooperations.

WeVorce in the US has developed a five-step process to settle divorces in a kind and peaceful manner. Resolver is an independent provider of dispute resolution for consumer complaints.

Justice42 in the Netherlands offers uitelkaar.nl, a one-stop-shop platform that helps couples who want a divorce work together to develop a fair agreement and avoid escalation.

The International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution provides more case studies. Several companies provide software for online dispute resolution services that can be configured by courts or other suppliers to create a one-stop procedure. Examples include Tylertech/Modria, Matterhorn, and Resolve Disputes Online.

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio from Pexels

A major bottleneck for one-stop procedures is the submission problem. An English task force recommends making the use of one-stop procedures mandatory. This also happened in the leading examples from Canada and the UAE. In line with this, mandatory mediation now exists in many states for many types of problems. Early objections came from mediators who felt that mediation should be voluntarily agreed. Data now show high rates of satisfactory resolution in mandatory procedures.

Moreover, only a small number of people tend to use mediation until strong incentives are introduced. On the other hand, mediation without the back-up of adjudication has been described by a leading author on access to justice as the “sound of one hand clapping.” Diagnosis, advice, attempts at settlement, followed by adjudication has always been the natural workflow in litigation services.

One-stop procedures can easily serve hundreds or thousands of cases, allowing for standardisation, continuous learning and a reliable revenue stream.

Smart fee systems include fee sharing by the parties, adequate timing of payments, with subsidies by government and contributions by communities benefiting from dispute resolution. Outcomes can be monitored so that clients can see their progress. Data can inform iterative upgrades of the procedure.

The aim of one-stop dispute resolution platforms and procedures is to create an integrated “treatment” geared towards an agreement rather than a judgment. In order to facilitate such agreements, the court or alternative one-stop platform uses an evidence-based approach. Disputants can identify issues, diagnose their problem and be informed about possible solutions.

A structured negotiation process follows, in which the parties first identify their own needs and then learn about the needs of the other party. After discovering that many of their needs are compatible, they are invited to negotiate solutions. Templates for agreements are available and ensure the parties can draw inspiration from the solutions that have worked for others in the past. Many of these systems also include review of agreements by a neutral lawyer, in order to ensure that agreements are balanced, effective and legally sound.

When the parties cannot agree, a facilitator helps them to agree or further define the remaining issues to be decided by a judge.

How it works

Explore and apply

Negotiate

Reach an agreement

Get decisions

Scaling one-stop dispute resolution

Unified systems for family disputes are emerging

One-stop dispute resolution systems for family law are promoted in the US and the Netherlands. These designs tend to provide different tracks for: people who can mostly solve their problems themselves; people who would benefit from continuous facilitation, and; people with complications such as high levels of conflict behavior, domestic violence or substance abuse.

Unified systems for family disputes are emerging

Subsidising fees in a more targeted way

Government agencies can opt to subsidise entry fees (covering intake, diagnosis and negotiation), fees for mediation, and fees for extra guidance and/or review. Having separate fees for each step in the justice journey enables the government to subsidise in a more targeted way and have a clearer understanding of the impact of their subsidies.

Subsidising fees in a more targeted way

Integrated online support tools face challenges

Some jurisdictions do not allow private, non-regulated actors to provide legal advice. In other jurisdictions, developing a tool that provides online support for the steps necessary to come to a separation agreement can be done without facing major regulatory issues. Issues arise when input from the court is needed.

Integrated online support tools face challenges

One-stop procedures can be the default procedure

A major bottleneck for one-stop platforms and procedures is the submission problem. Because of this, mandatory mediation now exists in many states for many types of problems.

One-stop procedures can be the default procedure

Local justice providers can plug into an online tool and give in-person assistance

A one-stop shop solution, supported online, will not only be available for users who are able to help themselves. Local justice providers can assist and guide people that are illiterate or not connected to the internet. These providers would use the platform primarily for case-management and interactions with other professionals.

Local justice providers can plug into an online tool and give in-person assistance

Photo by Keira Burton from Pexels

One-stop Platforms and procedures: integration, submission and smart fees

Suggestions for what should be addressed in a feasibility study

Combining current services into one stop model

Specialised procedures, combining information, diagnosis, negotiation, mediation and adjudication, are often seen as major game-changers. Inspiring examples exist. A two-men task force consisting of the former chief justice of England and Wales and the leading Oxford University expert on dispute system design went even further. They detailed how the famous English justice system, known for its traditions and costly common law practices, can be reorganised by linking specialised services into seamless justice journeys. For all pressing justice problems, agencies exist that already take on information and mediation roles. Ombudsmen and specialised tribunals are functioning. What lacks is a user-centred design, where cases can flow through the stages without interruption.

Mandatory services or another solution to the submission problem

A major bottleneck for one stop procedures is the submission problem. The English task force recommends mandatory use. This also happened in the leading examples from Canada and the UAE. In line with this, mandatory mediation now exists in many states for many types of problems. Early objections came from mediators believing that mediation should be voluntarily agreed. Data now show satisfactory resolution rates in mandatory programs. Moreover, only a few % of target groups tend to use mediation, until strong incentives are bringing levels to 20% or more. On the other hand, mediation without the back up of adjudication, has been described by a leading author on access to justice as the “sound of one hand clapping.” Diagnosis, advice, attempts at settlement, followed by adjudication has always been the natural workflow in litigation services.

Benefiting from advanced user centred-design

What can be done now is using advanced design methods and conflict resolution research to build highly effective procedures. One stop procedures can easily serve 100.000s of cases, allowing for standardisation, continuous learning and a reliable revenue stream. Smart fee systems include fee sharing by the parties, adequate timing of payments, with subsidies by government and contributions by communities benefiting from resolution. Outcomes can be monitored so clients can see how they make progress. Data can inform the next upgrade of the procedure.

Towards an investable opportunity

Click below to access the Business Model Canvas on how this model would work, based on the example of a one-stop-shop family justice procedure in the Netherlands.

In the canvas, we quantify activities, possible
revenue streams and give an indication of the required
investments. We also estimate market size and
potential contribution to growth of the justice sector,
showing the most important assumptions for these
calculations.