New court technologies automate and streamline the litigation process, clearing up court dockets

Individuals have historically resolved disputes through face-to-face (F2F) interactions, such as litigation or traditional 'arbitration, mediation, or negotiations. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) theorists and practitioners have long assumed that empathy gained from in-person contact is necessary for resolving conflicts. Furthermore, the norm has been litigation, as individuals seek to avail their rights in courts of law. Public justice demanded that dispute resolution be exactly that, public and in full view. This has especially been true in the United States (U.S.), where one's "day in court" is sacred. Nonetheless, times have changed, and individuals have realized that litigation is too expensive and somewhat nonsensical in many cases. Individuals used to the digital age demand real remedies in real time. Time is money. This is especially true for small dollar, property tax, parking, and other similarly less complex cases. Consumers simply are not willing to spend the time and money it takes to file a claim in court or arbitration and travel to an in-person process. For small dollar claims, it is even too costly to seek redress through F2F small claims courts or litigation alternatives such as mediation, if one must pay for the mediator's time and bear the costs of travel and time off work.1 Meanwhile, we have become increasingly comfortable with transacting online.2 The Pew Research Center recently did a study of online shopping and e-commerce and found tremendous growth in the way our commercial behaviors have changed.3 Surveys of U.S. consumers in 2015 indicated that Americans were spending nearly $350 billion annually online, and 79% of Americans indicated that they make purchases online.4 Additionally, roughly half of Americans reported making online purchases using their cell phones, and many indicated their purchases were made on social media sites such as Facebook or Twitter.5 These percentages have presumably grown since that time. At the same time, e-commerce sites such as Amazon and eBay have gathered loyal customers by providing online means for quickly resolving purchase disputes. 6 This gave birth to the field of online dispute resolution, or "ODR.' 'v ODR includes automated decision-making, as well as online negotiation, mediation, arbitration, community courts, and variations thereof. Its efficiency, accessibility, and ease expand access to justice that moves at the pace of technology, thus allowing for innovation. 8 ODR also allows individuals to resolve disputes quickly and cheaply, without the costs or hassles of travel or taking time away from work. 9 These ODR attributes have sparked initiatives for furthering its use throughout the world. For example, the European Union (E.U.) has promulgated the ADR Directive and ODR Regulation, which work in tandem to require Member States to implement ODR systems for consumer claims.10 Furthermore, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) worked for many years in advancing guidelines on ODR for cross-border ecommerce through its Working Group III on Online Dispute Resolution. Although the Working Group never reached a consensus for such guidelines, it ended in 2016 with a strong recommendation for continuing development of ODR as imperative for efficient redress in cross-border claims. It is therefore not a surprise that the UNCITRAL Working Group IV recently expressed a desire to consider the role of ODR in its examination of cloud computing contracting and identity management. 11 Nonetheless, public courts have been slow to adopt ODR or develop e-courts. 12 It may seem surprising that the U.S. has not moved more quickly in this direction, given that many of the leading innovators in legal technology are based in the U.S.13 That is not to say that there are no innovators in U.S. courts. Instead, some courts in Michigan, Ohio, New York, and elsewhere are developing pilot projects for ODR as a pre-cursor to trial, or for e-courts to handle specific disputes. 14 Groups such as the American Bar Association (ABA) are also developing ODR projects that will operate as an alternative to the courts in an effort to assist parties in resolving claims with only limited judicial assistance. 15 At the same time, public ODR projects are taking shape in other parts of the world. Most notable have been online courts in Canada and China. Indeed, forward thinking policymakers are learning that ODR programs improve judicial efficiency and access for litigants to "attend court" in a meaningful way.16 There is no reason to confine ODR to e-commerce. Instead, individuals in our increasingly wireless world prefer to resolve disputes online. Often, lack of physical access and real-time availability of all participants impede access to justice in F2F ,., processes.1 7 For minor disputes, the time, money, and real or perceived risks involved with going to court are often not worth the cost or hassle.18 It is simply more cost-effective and convenient for most people to use ODR for small claims, traffic, landlord-tenant, and similarly smaller or less complex disputes. Public bodies also benefit from ODR because it is more efficient than traditional judicial proceedings. The initial start-up costs often appear daunting, but are easily eclipsed by later savings in terms of time and money. Problem diagnosis built into ODR leads to dispute prevention, while users enjoy online negotiation and mediation that lead to consensual and quick, resolutions. This saves the courts from the administrative burden of trial and helps clear court dockets with minimal personnel costs. Online court systems also encourage fee and judgment payments by incorporating automatic notices and payments. Moreover, evidence suggests that ODR boosts citizen satisfaction. 19 That leaves us asking why e-courts and public ODR are not the norm, especially for small-dollar cases. Why do we only see pilot projects in discrete locations and contexts? The answer seems to be, in part, fear of the unknown, fear of losing jobs and status, fear of start-up costs, and fear that technology will disrupt due process. This Article, therefore, aims to provide fuel for overcoming these fears to assist access to justice through expansion of e-courts and public ODR for small dollar and less complex cases. To that end, Part I will provide a brief background on the development of ODR, and reasons for moving remedy systems online. Part II will then give examples of ODR in U.S. courts, while Part III will add discussion of the international efforts toward online courts. These Parts will therefore set the stage for comparative analysis leading to Part IV, which will unpack important issues for policymakers to consider as these public ODR projects unfold. This aims to spark further debate, by discussing the essentials for building fair and efficient ecourts. Finally, Part V will conclude.