For some years now, I have argued that the concept of access to justice should embrace four

different elements. The first, of course, is dispute resolution itself. This is the central service of
courts and a crucial component of all legal and judicial systems. Any credible justice system will
offer some form of authoritative dispute resolution, a forum for the vindication of people’s
legal rights. (...) At the same time, second, we should also have better methods for dispute
containment.

Once disputes have arisen, we should want to be able to nip them in the bud. Failing this, we
should try to ensure that our justice system’s response to any dispute is proportionate and in
the best interests of litigants. (...) My third sense of access to justice, dispute avoidance, is
inspired by the world of medicine where it is commonplace to believe that prevention is better
than cure. Immunization and vaccination are everyday features of our lives. All manner of
awful ailments and illness

are thereby avoided. (…) It is unsatisfactory that people often have legal entitlements of which
they are entirely unaware, that there are legal benefits which they could secure if only they
had the knowledge.

In a distributively just system, it seems to me, people would not be disadvantaged in this
fashion. And so, in contrast, I look forward to the day when we will be committed to legal
health promotion underpinned by community legal services that are akin perhaps to
community medicine programmes,

except that they will be available very largely online. Providing access to justice, in this fourth
sense, will mean offering access to the opportunities that the law creates. SUSSKIND, Richard.
Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019, edição Kindle.