Abstract

Keywords

Legal disruption; technology; innovation; online dispute resolution.

……………………………………………………….

1 Introduction

The legal profession is noted for being deeply rooted in tradition, with norms, practices and rules having developed over centuries and being firmly entrenched within individual legal systems. Whether based on civil law systems, common law systems or a mixed legal system, the law and practitioners of the law have historically been slow to evolve in keeping with broader societal changes. 1

* Robin Cupido. BA LLB LLM PhD. Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Cape Town, South Africa. E-mail: robin.cupido@uct.ac.za. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9098-8408.

1 Sourdin, Li and Burke 2019 Macquarie Law Journal 30; Singh 2013 TSAR 380.

Technology is one aspect of modern humanity that has increasingly outpaced the legal framework designed to support it. The unprecedented technological boom over the past thirty years has changed many aspects of human interaction, including the way in which people receive and process information, 3

3 This has largely been through the rise of social media like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and other similar platforms.

As noted above, this integration of technology into the human experience has not been accompanied by the parallel evolution of law. This is especially evident in the South African legal landscape, where institutions, practices and practitioners are lagging behind in terms of the incorporation of such technology into the practice of law. Although there has been legislative

regulation of certain aspects of ICT, 7

7 See for example the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002 (hereafter the ECTA); Electronic Communications Act 36 of 2005; Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013; Cybercrimes Act 19 of 2020.

2 Disruptive innovation

The term "disruptive innovation" was coined by Christensen 12

12 Christensen Innovator's Dilemma xii.

innovations that make products and services more accessible and affordable, thereby making them available to a larger population. 13

13 Christensen Institute 2024 https://www.christenseninstitute.org/disruptive-innovations/.

These innovations have been identified across disciplines in the past thirty years, most notably business, health sciences and engineering. In addition to providing a definition of disruptive innovation, the Christensen Institute has identified three pillars of a successful disruptive innovation, namely enabling technology, an innovative business model and a coherent value network. 14

14 Christensen Institute 2024 https://www.christenseninstitute.org/disruptive-innovations/.

product or could not afford to be a bigger part of the consumer base. The third pillar, a coherent value network, refers to all of those stakeholders (including producers and consumers) who are better off when the disruptive technology prospers.

From this brief overview of disruptive innovation, it is evident that the roots of the disruption theory are found in business, as the concept is framed in and explained using traditional business terminology. 15

15 Christensen 2006 Journal of Product Innovation Management 39-55.

3 Disruptive innovation in the legal profession

According to Susskind, technology plays a central role in the transformation of the legal profession as there are a number of systems that are "systematizing and sometimes changing the way that lawyers work". 18

18 Susskind and Susskind Future of the Professions 68.

have become streamlined 23

23 "…the new technology is merely the tool that is enabling new solutions. It is the means by which the disruptive forces can have their way." Guihot 2019 North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology 411.

the central disruption that appears to be taking place in the legal profession is not technology itself, but what technology provides … a means for those providing legal services to streamline the delivery of those services in a fashion that is far less expensive than the manner in which such services have been provided to date. 24

24 Brescia 2016 SC L Rev 203.

3.1 Factors facilitating technological disruption

Guihot 25

25 Guihot 2019 North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology 412.

Barnett and Treleaven 29

29 Barnett and Treleaven 2017 Computer Journal 399.

offices and in the courts, leading to the steady acceptance of technology as a means of facilitating traditional functions like case management and information storage. They further note that parties seeking recourse are increasingly looking to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and online dispute resolution (ODR), as these methods of dispute resolution are often cheaper and faster, and can easily incorporate technology to facilitate or even automate proceedings. 31

31 Barnett and Treleaven 2017 Computer Journal 400.

3.2 Technological disruption in South African law

These trends towards the increased use of technology in the practice of the law have also been seen in South Africa. The role that LawTech can play in various aspects of the legal profession is increasingly becoming recognised, with different initiatives finding success in the market. For example, LexisNexis has created LexisNexis Workflow Solutions, 32

32 LexisNexis 2024 https://www.lexisnexis.co.za/workflow-solutions.

Other initiatives created to promote the study and development of law and technology in South Africa include the South African Legal Technology (SALT) Network 34

34 SALT Network 2024 https://www.saltnetwork.co.za/.

Another key area in South African law that is being affected by technology is the court system and the administration of justice. In CMC Woodworking Machinery (Pty) Ltd v Pieter Odendaal Kitchens 36

36 CMC Woodworking Machinery v Pieter Odendaal Kitchens 2012 5 SA 604 (KZD) (hereafter CMC Woodworking Machinery).

the judicial imperative of clarity and certainty has meant slow, hesitant progress in the information communication and technology environments 38

38 Bellengere and Swales 2016 Stell LR 454.

the judgment in CMC Woodworking Machinery represents the South African court's willingness to adapt to and adopt technological support in carrying out various functions of the court. 39

39 Singh 2013 TSAR 383.

Although there are many who support the use of technology as a facilitator of access to justice in keeping with the approach in MK v Transnet, 43

43 MK v Transnet para 25.

into consideration by courts when using technology to facilitate dispute resolution proceedings. 45

45 Mabeka 2021 PELJ 11.

Another aspect of court management that has been affected by technology is administration, with electronic records and case management being touted as a remedy for the ineffective court administration and case backlogs experienced by South African courts. 47

47 Ngoepe and Makhubela 2015 Records Management Journal 289.

The Covid-19 pandemic played a big role in forcing governments and judiciaries to find ways in which justice could be served while observing the social distancing required to prevent the spread of the disease. In South Africa the lockdown regulations aimed at enforcing social distancing severely limited the operation of physical courts. 54

54 For a full explanation of the various legislative measures implemented to govern the National Lockdown in response to the outbreak of Covid-19 in 2020, see Lubaale 2022 AJCJ 13-15.

is typically the main route used to access justice. Technology allowed for the courts to conduct their proceedings virtually. Still using the traditional courtroom set-up and procedure, virtual courts allow the participants to access the courtroom space using video conferencing or similar electronic media. 55

55 Knoetze 2014 De Rebus 28-32; Witting 2018 https://leidenlawblog.nl/ articles/leveraging-technology-to-enhance-access-to-justice-for-children-in-africa.

In addition to the various uses that technology has found in the court system, it has been used to provide alternative opportunities for parties to resolve their disputes outside of litigation. Although ADR has typically been the preferred alternative to litigation, ODR is another dispute resolution option, using technology to create dispute resolution mechanisms online. There is no universal definition of ODR, 58

58 Lederer 2018 https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/01/11/new-found-emphasis-institutional-arbitration-india/.

ODR is far more than a range of new communication platforms. In fact, when discussing ODR one might be discussing any of the following: The online communication platform used for exchanging messages and offers in an ODR process; A wide range of individual processes from the ADR spectrum that can be conducted online (e.g., online negotiation, online mediation); An ODR system - an environment in which parties to specific types of disputes are led through a particular process or set of processes on their way to a resolution, or; ODR technology/software, aiming far beyond the 'communications platforms' discussed above. 60

60 Ebner and Zeleznikow 2015 Hamline University's School of Law's Journal of Public Law and Policy 146-147.

Incorporating technology to both facilitate and, more recently, automate dispute resolution processes is a vital part of ODR, 61

61 Wing et al 2021 Negotiation Journal 50-51.

explored when discussing the disruption of the dispute resolution space. This development in dispute resolution has garnered both approval and criticism, inspiring strong sentiments from its supporters and detractors. The wide variety of ODR services available has affected how dispute resolution is thought about and conducted, an effect which is worthy of further investigation.

4 How ODR has disrupted traditional dispute resolution

4.1 Overview of ODR

ODR was not initially developed for the specific purpose of challenging or replacing an existing legal process. Instead, it began as a response to a growing number of disputes that originated in the online space and the subsequent need for a mechanism by which to resolve these disputes. 62

62 Katsh 2007 IRLCT 97.

Despite this limited start, ODR soon evolved to use technology for more than just online communication, and slowly the ways in which disputes could be resolved in cyberspace began to change. Instead of using technology only to facilitate traditional ADR methods, ODR has grown into its own unique method of dispute resolution. Where ADR prioritises face-to-face human communication to promote values such as neutrality and confidentiality, ODR processes take place online and are increasingly reliant on the capabilities of machines to facilitate the dispute resolution process. 65

65 Katsh and Rule 2016 SC L Rev 329-330.

systems. Katsh and Rifkin describe ODR as a process in which the technology has become a fourth party to the dispute, working to support the third party facilitating the dispute resolution. 67

67 Katsh and Rifkin Online Dispute Resolution 64-65.

This changing role of ODR is also seen in how it has found application since its inception. Initially, ODR was only used to resolve disputes that arose online between internet users who would probably never have any in-person interaction. 68

68 Rule 2020 Annual Review of Law and Social Science 281.

However, it must be questioned whether this growth of ODR truly qualifies as a legal disruption or whether it is merely a different way of providing traditional dispute resolution circumstances in the online space or including a technological element. To determine this, it would be instructive to go back to the definition of a disruptive innovation and to assess ODR in the light thereof.

4.2 ODR as a disruptive innovation

A disruptive innovation or disruptive technology is one that effectively creates a new market and value network in an existing field (in our case, law) and eventually goes on to disrupt that market and value network. 74

74 Christensen Innovator's Dilemma xii.

service in ways that are unexpected and perhaps unforeseen by the existing field. 75

75 Christensen 2021 https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed.

4.2.1 Law-disruptive technology involves a new technology or innovation

Although the internet is not a new technology and the online aspect of ODR is no longer novel, technological development is ongoing and continues to have an impact on ODR and dispute resolution in general. These new technological developments include mobile technology and apps, artificial intelligence (AI), smart contracts and blockchain technology. Each of these developments has affected dispute resolution in a novel way and has changed how lawyers and legal scholars approach dispute resolution.

The use of mobile technology in ODR has been recognised as a way to "democratise" dispute resolution and allow those individuals without access to computers to access dispute resolution services using their mobile devices. 79

79 Leigh and Fowlie 2014 Laws 114; Schmitz 2018 Notre Dame J L Ethics & Pub Pol'y 5; Watanabe and Rule 2022 International Journal on Online Dispute Resolution 32.

AI is another technological development that has serious implications for the field of dispute resolution. Much like ODR, there are varying definitions for AI, each of which touches on a different aspect. As such, Martinez argues that

there is no general legal definition for what constitutes Al outside of a specific application, such as in the context of autonomous automobiles or electronic agents trading in the markets. 81

81 Martinez 2019 Nevada Law Journal 1016.

Perhaps it is because the meaning of AI is so context-dependent that Surden 82

82 Surden 2019 Ga St U L Rev 1307.

As AI grows in sophistication and capabilities, it must also be questioned what effect this will have on procedural values and norms, most notably transparency and fairness. In the South African context this is an important question in the light of the constitutional right to access to justice 84

84 Section 34 of the Constitution.

Smart contracts and blockchain technology 85

85 Ast and Deffains provide the following definition of the blockchain: "Blockchain is a particular type of distributed ledger technology ('DLT'), a way of recording and sharing data across multiple data stores where each has the exact same data records and are collectively maintained and controlled by a distributed network of computer servers called nodes. Instead of having a trusted validator (i.e., a central bank), the system relies on a decentralized network of anonymous validators to

doing what it is programmed to do once a certain set of conditions are met. Agreements that are built into a smart contract can thus be enforced without an outside authority doing so. 86

86 McPeak 2019 University of Toledo Law Review 461.

4.2.2 Law-disruptive technology has the potential to impact on society

Disruptive innovation typically targets people who are not existing consumers or who are at the bottom rung of an existing consumer base, impacting on society by bringing previously inaccessible services to the broader public. Hongdao et al have identified a similar characteristic in legal disruption, saying that

initially, technology-based legal services served the low end of the market since they were unable to afford sophisticated legal offerings. These services were novel, cheaper, simpler, easily accessible, and more convenient to use for relatively simple legal actions, albeit with avenues for improvement when more complex services were requested. 87

87 Hongdao et al 2019 Sustainability 2.

ODR constitutes such a disruption, providing an appealing alternative option to those who are prevented from accessing traditional legal services due to their often-prohibitive cost. Individuals wishing to use the litigation system must often pay for the services of a legal representative and must typically attend a physical courtroom which brings its own challenges. Having to attend court in a specific jurisdiction can involve travel and can require people to take extended periods of time off, costing them time and money. It is well established that many countries have a backlog of cases to be heard by their courts, meaning that the litigation process is often drawn out. 88

88 Albornoz and Martín 2012 U Miami Inter-Am L Rev 43; Schmitz 2018 Notre Dame J L Ethics & Pub Pol'y 28.

Disruptive innovations also impact on society by making resources previously reserved for a select few more accessible, typically being more accessible and affordable than the existing systems. ODR achieves this due to the dispute resolution being carried out either partly or wholly online, which serves to reduce the cost of proceedings overall. This is because it removes or lessens the need for disputants to travel, removes the need to pay legal representatives and lowers the costs of conducting a trial in court. It is thus both financially beneficial and time-saving, making it more convenient for disputants to use. This aspect alone makes it an attractive option to people who cannot access traditional litigation or other dispute resolution services. 89

89 Schiavetta "Online Dispute Resolution" 1-2.

4.2.3 Law-disruptive technology does not fit into the existing legal framework

A seemingly negative characteristic of disruptive innovation is that existing service providers are inclined to disregard it and do not anticipate how it will affect their markets. Since ODR's inception it has been treated with some scepticism and seeming distrust, 90

90 For a good example of this kind of critique, see Condlin 2017 Cardozo Journal of Dispute Resolution 717-758.

Despite these potential problems arising in the implementation of ODR, it should not simply be dismissed as a passing fad. The fact remains that technology continues to advance at an unprecedented rate, and ODR systems and processes are becoming increasingly sophisticated. This would naturally lead to their being used in different ways and to resolve issues of growing complexity, allowing ODR to fit into a newer and more expansive understanding of dispute resolution as a field.

4.2.4 Is ODR a law-disruptive technology?

If we accept that

true disruption in the legal industry seems to center around the efficient, technology-enabled delivery of legal services at a fraction of the cost of traditional legal services 93

93 Brescia 2016 SC L Rev 203.

then it would stand to reason that ODR is one such method of legal disruption, 94

94 This view of ODR is shared by Susskind, who has identified ODR as being one of ten disruptive legal technologies that will change the face of legal services as we currently know them. Susskind End of Lawyers? 217.

5 Impact of ODR on our understanding of dispute resolution

How, then, has ODR impacted on the current dispute resolution landscape? From the time it originated in the 1990s, ODR has been slow to find traction, despite initial enthusiasm from some dispute resolution scholars. 95

95 Cona 1995 Buff L Rev 975; Friedman 1997 Hastings Comm & Ent LJ 695; Katsh 1996 Conn L Rev 953.

However, technology and societal attitudes towards online life have developed far beyond what was imagined in the 1990s. Litigation has become more costly in terms of both time and money, and many more individuals are participating in online interactions, meaning that they are more familiar with the online environment. The typical internet user has changed 98

98 The concepts of digital natives and digital immigrants can help us to understand the changing nature of internet users. See generally Dingli and Seychell New Digital Natives.

now want to have access to remedies in a way that is convenient, cheap and quick, 99

99 Schmitz 2018 Notre Dame J L Ethics & Pub Pol'y 2.

As it continues to spread, various approaches have been taken to the regulation of ODR across the world. Internationally ODR has been adopted and promoted by governmental bodies and supranational organisations, some of which have published regulations or guiding principles to facilitate the uptake of ODR in various regions. In South Africa ODR is being adopted in specific fields which are regulated by national legislation, for example consumer law and e-commerce. The international adoption of ODR and the South African uptake of ODR will briefly be discussed in this section to promote an understanding of how the approach to ODR depends largely on the context in which it is being used.

5.1 International adoption of ODR

Perhaps the most well-recognised example of a governmental initiative to implement and regulate ODR can be seen in the introduction of the Directive on Alternative Dispute Resolution 105

105 Council Directive (EC) 2013/11 on Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes [2013] OJ L165/63.

important development in the growth of ODR internationally. 109

109 Cortés 2011 IJLIT 20; Morek 2006 University of Toledo Law Review 167; Schultz 2004 North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology 74.

The recognition of underlying guiding principles for ODR can also be seen in the Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution developed by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). 112

112 UNCITRAL Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution (2018) (hereafter UNCITRAL Technical Notes).

These developments are indicative of a shifting attitude towards ODR in the legal world and show that it is slowly being accepted as a viable method of dispute resolution that allows us to resolve disputes in a novel and interesting way.

5.2 ODR adoption in South Africa

This technology-driven approach to dispute resolution has also found traction in South African law, where ODR has been implemented in terms of legislation and by private start-up companies.

Section 70 of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA) states that consumers may refer their business-to-consumer disputes to various alternative dispute resolution providers. 114

114 Section 70 of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (hereinafter the CPA).

one of these alternative providers, 115

115 Sections 70(1)(a) and (b) of the CPA provide for consumers to consult an ombud for the resolution of consumer disputes.

Section 69 of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act establishes a dispute resolution mechanism specifically to govern domain name disputes arising from the use of the dot ZA (.za) domain name. 117

117 Section 69(2) of the ECTA; Hurter 2007 SA Merc LJ 165.

Apart from legislation-driven ODR programs, ODR has also been implemented by private companies that noted various gaps in the market. Since 2017 iedivorce.co.za has been a website that parties can access to facilitate their divorce proceedings through online means. With an attorney's assistance the disputing parties can complete most of their divorce paperwork and negotiate their settlements online. Although the parties will still have to go to court for the granting of a final divorce order to enforce the outcome, the main dispute resolution process happens entirely online. It must be noted that this method is not suitable for more complicated matters, but it provides an innovative approach to the resolution of simple divorce cases.

NuvaLaw is a lawtech 122

122 Barnett and Treleaven 2017 Computer Journal 399.

resolve issues of liability for personal injury and the quantum of damages to be paid.

6 An ongoing paradigm shift in dispute resolution

These examples of ODR usage in South Africa and initiatives to regulate ODR abroad are indicative of an ongoing paradigm shift in dispute resolution, using the advantages that technology provides to disrupt how dispute resolution is conceived of by legal practitioners, scholars 123

123 "With the technologic advances over recent decades and their remarkable acceleration, it is clear that the legal profession needs to play a bit of catch-up by asking ourselves how can we best utilize all available communication capacities to elevate and expand the delivery of valuable legal information, advice, and services. Dream big! The future is not what it once seemed." Melamed 2015 Or L Rev 924.

Technology has undoubtedly caused the disruption of the legal field and dispute resolution, and such disruption will continue as technology becomes ever more sophisticated. AI, blockchain and virtual reality will bring about new ways of conceiving and facilitating human relationships, potentially giving rise to different types of disputes and necessitating different ways of creating access to justice for the average individual.

Since its inception ODR has grown into an established form of dispute resolution broad and flexible enough to accommodate the technological developments referred to throughout this paper. It is dynamic, allowing for dispute resolution processes to be adapted to different forms of ICT according to the environment that they are used in. Whether low-tech or high-tech, from a simpler mobile application to a more complicated smart contract, ODR can be used to provide a more cost- and time-effective dispute resolution mechanism.

However, this is not to say that ODR does not pose other challenges, and amongst those commonly identified is the question of fundamental principles of procedure. A question that often arises is how principles such as fairness and transparency would be given effect to during the ODR process, whichever form it may take. Stylianou notes, with support from other ODR experts, 124

124 Condlin 2017 Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 756; Rabinovich-Einy and Katsh 2017 Ohio St J on Disp Resol 720.

(p)erhaps the most consistent and convincing criticism of online dispute resolution stems from concerns of procedural and substantive fairness. 125

125 Stylianou 2008 Syracuse J Int'l L & Com 124.

This is an ongoing concern, as although the UNCITRAL Technical Notes provide that ODR processes must be fair, 126

126 Section II Note 7 of the UNCITRAL Technical Notes.

Any such guiding principles for ODR would also need to be flexible enough to include some consideration of the rate at which technology is growing and the impact that further development would have on the integrity of ODR processes. 128

128 The potential risks are pointed out by Schmitz, who states that "(w)hile the use of AI and algorithms can be useful to assist in making reasoned judgments, there is a risk that technology will replace human judgment and creativity that computers cannot replicate. In other words, algorithms and machine learning may perpetuate bias or eschew the 'human touch' often necessary in some dispute resolution processes". Schmitz 2020 https://ssrn.com/abstract=3525757.

Despite these challenges and concerns, Schmitz has described ODR as providing

an exciting frontier for access to justice that moves at the pace of technology, thus surpassing current imagination and allowing for innovation. 130

130 Schmitz 2018 Notre Dame J L Ethics & Pub Pol'y 2.

This description perfectly encapsulates the disruptive nature of ODR and frames it as a positive disruptive innovation, allowing us to adapt our traditional understanding of dispute resolution and create new ways to resolve conflicts of varying types.

Bibliography

Literature

Albornoz and Martín 2012 U Miami Inter-Am L Rev

Albornoz MM and Martín NG "Feasibility Analysis of Online Dispute Resolution in Developing Countries" 2012 U Miami Inter-Am L Rev 39-61

Ast and Deffains 2021 Stanford Journal of Blockchain Law and Policy

Ast F and Deffains B "When Online Dispute Resolution Meets Blockchain: The Birth of Decentralized Justice" 2021 Stanford Journal of Blockchain Law and Policy 1-21

Bakhramova 2022 European Journal of Innovation in Nonformal Education

Bakhramova M "Theoretical and Legal Regulation of ODR in the European Union Countries" 2022 European Journal of Innovation in Nonformal Education 299-304

Ballesteros 2021 International Journal on Online Dispute Resolution

Ballesteros T "International Perspectives on Online Dispute Resolution in the E-Commerce Landscape" 2021 International Journal on Online Dispute Resolution 85-101

Barendrecht and Honeyman 2013 Dispute Resolution Magazine

Barendrecht M and Honeyman C "Dispute Resolution: Existing Business Models and Looming Disruptions" 2013 Dispute Resolution Magazine 17-21

Barnett and Treleaven 2017 Computer Journal

Barnett J and Treleaven P "Algorithmic Dispute Resolution – The Automation of Professional Dispute Resolution Using AI and Blockchain Technologies" 2017 The Computer Journal 399-408

Barton 2018 Law Practice

Barton BH "Rebooting Justice: ODR is Disrupting the Judicial System" 2018 Law Practice 32-37

Beckers and Harder 2016 Digital Journalism

Beckers K and Harder RA "Twitter Just Exploded" 2016 Digital Journalism 910-920

Bellengere and Swales 2016 Stell LR

Bellengere A and Swales L "Can Facebook Ever be a Substitute for the Real Thing? A Review of CMC Woodworking Machinery v Pieter Odendaal Kitchens 2012 5 SA 604 (KZD)" 2016 Stell LR 454-475

Bordone 1998 Harvard Negotiation Law Review

Bordone RC "Electronic Online Dispute Resolution: A Systems Approach – Potential, Problems, and a Proposal" 1998 Harvard Negotiation Law Review 175-212

Braeutigam 2006 Appalachian Journal of Law

Braeutigam AM "Fusses That Fit Online: Online Mediation in Non-Commercial Contexts" 2006 Appalachian Journal of Law 275-302

Brescia 2016 SC L Rev

Brescia RH "What We Know and Need to Know About Disruptive Innovation" 2016 SC L Rev 203-222

Brescia et al 2015 Alb L Rev

Brescia RH et al "Embracing Disruption: How Technological Change in the Delivery of Legal Services Can Improve Access to Justice" 2015 Alb L Rev 553-622

Caserta and Madsen 2019 Laws

Caserta S and Madsen MR "The Legal Profession in the Era of Digital Capitalism: Disruption or New Dawn" 2019 Laws 1-17

Christensen 2006 Journal of Product Innovation Management

Christensen CM "The Ongoing Process of Building a Theory of Disruption" 2006 Journal of Product Innovation Management 39-55

Christensen Innovator's Dilemma

Christensen CM The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail (Harvard Business School Press Boston 1997)

Cona 1995 Buff L Rev

Cona FA "Application of Online Systems in Alternative Dispute Resolution" 1995 Buff L Rev 975-1000

Condlin 2017 Cardozo Journal of Dispute Resolution

Condlin RJ "Online Dispute Resolution: Stinky, Repugnant, or Drab" 2017 Cardozo Journal of Dispute Resolution 717-758

Cortés 2011 IJLIT

Cortés P "Developing Online Dispute Resolution for Consumers in the EU: A Proposal for the Regulation of Accredited Providers" 2011 IJLIT 1-28

De La Rosa and Cebola 2019 Euro Rev Priv L

De La Rosa FE and Cebola CM "The Spanish and Portuguese Systems: Two Examples Calling for a Further Reform – Uncovering the Architecture Underlying the New Consumer ADR/ODR European Framework" 2019 Euro Rev Priv L 1251-1278

Dingli and Seychell New Digital Natives

Dingli A and Seychell D The New Digital Natives: Cutting the Chord (Springer-Verlag Berlin 2015)

Ebner and Zeleznikow 2015 Hamline University's School of Law's Journal of Public Law and Policy

Ebner N and Zeleznikow J "Fairness, Trust and Security in Online Dispute Resolution" 2015 Hamline University's School of Law's Journal of Public Law and Policy 143-160

Eisen 1998 BYU L Rev

Eisen JB "Are We Ready for Mediation in Cyberspace?" 1998 BYU L Rev 1305-1360

Fenwick, Siems and Wrbka Shifting Meaning of Legal Certainty

Fenwick M, Siems M and Wrbka S (eds) The Shifting Meaning of Legal Certainty in Comparative and Transnational Law (Hart Portland 2017)

Friedman 1997 Hastings Comm & Ent LJ

Friedman GH "Alternative Dispute Resolution and Emerging Online Technologies: Challenges and Opportunities" 1997 Hastings Comm & Ent LJ 695-718

Goodman 2003 Duke Law and Technology Review

Goodman JW "The Pros and Cons of Online Dispute Resolution: An Assessment of Cyber-Mediation" 2003 Duke Law and Technology Review 1-16

Guihot 2019 North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology

Guihot M "New Technology, the Death of the BigLaw Monopoly and the Evolution of the Computer Professional" 2019 North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology 405-469

Hattotuwa "Mobiles and ODR"

Hattotuwa S "Mobiles and ODR: Why We Should Care" in Abdel Wahab MS, Katsh E and Rainey D (eds) Online Dispute Resolution: Theory and Practice: A Treatise on Technology and Dispute Resolution (Eleven The Hague 2012) 95-106

Holness 2020 PELJ

Holness D "Improving Access to Justice Through Law Graduate Post-Study Community Service in South Africa" 2020 PELJ 1-25

Hongdao et al 2019 Sustainability

Hongdao Q et al "Legal Technologies in Action: The Future of the Legal Market in Light of Disruptive Innovations" 2019 Sustainability 1-19

Hurter 2007 SA Merc LJ

Hurter E "An Evaluation of Selected Aspects of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Regulations for the Resolution of Domain Name Disputes in the .za Domain Name Space" 2007 SA Merc LJ 165-185

Kadioglu 2019 ASBU Digital Law Review

Kadioglu C "Bricks and Clicks: Online Dispute Resolution Mechanisms and Implementation of Online Arbitration in Turkey for Cross-Border Business to Consumer E-Commerce Disputes" 2019 ASBU Digital Law Review 113-148

Kathuria et al 2023 International Conference on Disruptive Technologies

Kathuria A et al "Artificial Intelligence Enhancing its Role in Online Dispute Resolution" 2023 International Conference on Disruptive Technologies 629-632

Katsh 1996 Conn L Rev

Katsh E "Dispute Resolution in Cyberspace" 1996 Conn L Rev 953-980

Katsh 2007 IRLCT

Katsh E "Online Dispute Resolution: Some Implications for the Emergence of Law in Cyberspace" 2007 IRLCT 97-107

Katsh and Rifkin Online Dispute Resolution

Katsh E and Rifkin J Online Dispute Resolution (Jossey-Bass San Francisco 2001)

Katsh and Rule 2016 SC L Rev

Katsh E and Rule C "What We Know and Need to Know About Online Dispute Resolution" 2016 SC L Rev 329-344

Knoetze 2014 De Rebus

Knoetze I "Courtroom of the Future – Virtual Courts, e-Courtrooms, Videoconferencing and Online Dispute Resolution" 2014 De Rebus 28-32

Leigh and Fowlie 2014 Laws

Leigh D and Fowlie F "Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Within Developing Nations: A Qualitative Evaluation of Transfer and Impact" 2014 Laws 106-116

Lubaale 2022 AJCJ

Lubaale EC "The Gendered Impact of COVID-19 Directives on Access to Criminal Justice in South Africa" 2022 AJCJ 1-26

Mabeka 2021 PELJ

Mabeka NQ "An Analysis of the Implementation of the CaseLines System in South African Courts in the Light of the Provisions of Section 27 of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002: A Beautiful Dream to Come True in Civil Procedure" 2021 PELJ 1-31

Manyathi-Jele 2013 De Rebus

Manyathi-Jele N "The Legal Practice Bill and Community Service" 2013 De Rebus 8-10

Martinez 2019 Nevada Law Journal

Martinez R "Artificial Intelligence: Distinguishing Between Types and Definitions" 2019 Nevada Law Journal 1015-1042

McGregor and Molyneux 2020 Journalism

McGregor SC and Molyneux L "Twitter's Influence on News Judgment: An Experiment Among Journalists" 2020 Journalism 597-613

McPeak 2019 University of Toledo Law Review

McPeak A "Disruptive Technology and the Ethical Lawyer" 2019 University of Toledo Law Review 457-476

McQuoid-Mason 2013 Oñati Socio-Legal Series

McQuoid-Mason D "Access to Justice in South Africa: Are There Enough Lawyers?" 2013 Oñati Socio-Legal Series 561-579

Melamed 2015 Or L Rev

Melamed JC "Computer Uses in Legal Practice – Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow" 2015 Or L Rev 913-924

Morek 2006 University of Toledo Law Review

Morek R "The Regulatory Framework for Online Dispute Resolution: A Critical View" 2006 University of Toledo Law Review 163-192

Ngoepe and Makhubela 2015 Records Management Journal

Ngoepe M and Makhubela S "'Justice Delayed is Justice Denied' Records Management and the Travesty of Justice in South Africa" 2015 Records Management Journal 288-305

Peters 2021 CES Derecho

Peters S "The Evolution of Alternative Dispute Resolution and Online Dispute Resolution in the European Union" 2021 CES Derecho 3-17

Rabinovich-Einy and Katsh 2017 Ohio St J on Disp Resol

Rabinovich-Einy O and Katsh E "A New Relationship Between Public and Private Dispute Resolution: Lessons from Online Dispute Resolution" 2017 Ohio St J on Disp Resol 695-728

Ramasastry 2004 Wash L Rev

Ramasastry A "Government-to-Citizen Online Dispute Resolution: A Preliminary Inquiry" 2004 Wash L Rev 159-174

Rule 2020 Annual Review of Law and Social Science

Rule C "Online Dispute Resolution and the Future of Justice" 2020 Annual Review of Law and Social Science 277-292

Schiavetta "Online Dispute Resolution"

Schiavetta S "Online Dispute Resolution, e-Government and Overcoming the Digital Divide" Unpublished contribution delivered at the Queen's University of Belfast 20th BILETA Annual Conference (2005 Belfast)

Schmitz 2018 Notre Dame J L Ethics & Pub Pol'y

Schmitz AJ "There's an App for That: Developing Online Dispute Resolution to Empower Economic Development" 2018 Notre Dame J L Ethics & Pub Pol'y 1-45

Schultz 2004 North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology

Schultz T "Does Online Dispute Resolution Need Governmental Intervention? The Case for Architectures of Control and Trust" 2004 North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology 71-106

Sheppard 2015 Michigan State Law Review

Sheppard B "Incomplete Innovation and the Premature Disruption of Legal Services" 2015 Michigan State Law Review 1797-1910

Singh 2013 TSAR

Singh PP "Welcome to Facebook, Pieter Odendaal: You Have Been Served!" 2013 TSAR 380-389

Sourdin, Li and Burke 2019 Macquarie Law Journal

Sourdin T, Bin L and Burke T "Just, Quick and Cheap: Civil Dispute Resolution and Technology" 2019 Macquarie Law Journal 17-38

Sowers 2019 LCP

Sowers W "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Law-Disruptive Technology" 2019 LCP 193-214

Stylianou 2008 Syracuse J Int'l L & Com

Stylianou P "Online Dispute Resolution: The Case for a Treaty Between the United States and the European Union in Resolving Cross-Border e-Commerce Disputes" 2008 Syracuse J Int'l L & Com 117-131

Surden 2019 Ga St U L Rev

Surden H "Artificial Intelligence and Law: An Overview" 2019 Ga St U L Rev 1305-1337

Susskind End of Lawyers?

Susskind R The End of Lawyers? Rethinking the Nature of Legal Services (Oxford University Press Oxford 2010)

Susskind Tomorrow's Lawyers

Susskind R Tomorrow's Lawyers: An Introduction to Your Future 4th ed (Oxford University Press Oxford 2023)

Susskind and Susskind Future of the Professions

Susskind R and Susskind D The Future of the Professions: How Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts 2nd ed (Oxford University Press Oxford 2022)

Van Eck "Disruptive Force of Smart Contracts"

Van Eck MM "The Disruptive Force of Smart Contracts" in Doorsamy W, Paul BS and Marwala T (eds) The Disruptive Fourth Industrial Revolution (Springer Cham 2020) 21-45

Watanabe and Rule 2022 International Journal on Online Dispute Resolution

Watanabe M and Rule C "ODR in the Metaverse" 2022 International Journal on Online Dispute Resolution 21-33

Wing 2016 International Journal on Online Dispute Resolution

Wing L "Ethical Principles for Online Dispute Resolution: A GPS Device for the Field" 2016 International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution 12-33

Wing et al 2021 Negotiation Journal

Wing L et al "Designing Ethical Online Dispute Resolution Systems: The Rise of the Fourth Party" 2021 Negotiation Journal 49-64

Case law

Chongqin Gingxing Industries SA (Pty) Limited v Ye 2021 3 SA 189 (GJ)

CMC Woodworking Machinery v Pieter Odendaal Kitchens 2012 5 SA 604 (KZD)

MK v Transnet Ltd t/a Portnet 2018 4 All SA 251 (KZD)

Legislation

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996

Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008

Cybercrimes Act 19 of 2020

Electronic Communications Act 36 of 2005

Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002

Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013

Government publications

GN R1166 in GG 29405 of 22 November 2006

Judge President's Practice Directive 1 of 2020

International instruments

Council Directive (EC) 2013/11 on Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes [2013] OJ L165/63

Council Regulation (EC) 524/2013 on Online Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes [2013] OJ L165/1

UNCITRAL Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution (2018)

Internet sources

AFSA date unknown https://arbitration.co.za/

Arbitration Foundation of South Africa date unknown Welcome to AFSA https://arbitration.co.za/ accessed 18 September 2024

AllAfrica 2020 https://allafrica.com/stories/202010150901.html

AllAfrica 2020 South Africa: Gauteng Court Paralysis Blamed on Security Breach https://allafrica.com/stories/202010150901.html accessed 22 January 2024

CGSO date unknown http://www.cgso.org.za/

Consumer Goods and Services Ombud date unknown Home http://www.cgso.org.za/ accessed 18 September 2024

Christensen 2021 https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed

Christensen CM 2021 Disruptive Innovation https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed accessed 21 January 2024

Christensen Institute 2024 https://www.christenseninstitute.org/disruptive-innovations/

Christensen Institute 2024 Disruptive Innovation https://www.christen seninstitute.org/disruptive-innovations/ accessed 17 January 2024

Civil Resolution Tribunal date unknown https://civilresolutionbc.ca/

Civil Resolution Tribunal date unknown Home https://civilresolutionbc.ca/ accessed 18 September 2024

Consumidor date unknown https://consumidor.gov.br/pages/principal/

Consumidor date unknown Home https://consumidor.gov.br/pages/ principal/ accessed 18 September 2024

Dugard and Drage 2013 https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/ en/598681468307740801/pdf/793390NWPJ0D0T00PUBLIC00Box0377373B.pdf/

Dugard J and Drage K 2013 "To Whom Do the People Take Their Issues?" The Contribution of Community-Based Paralegals to Access to Justice in South Africa https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/5986814 68307740801/pdf/793390NWPJ0D0T00PUBLIC00Box0377373B.pdf accessed 18 September 2024

Dutton 2021 https://alt-network.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Judicial ReponsesCovid19Africa.pdf

Dutton C 2021 The Judicial Responses to COVID-19 in Africa: Mapping and Analysing the Accessibility of Justice and the Use of Technology in Court Systems During the 2020 Global Pandemic https://alt-network.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/JudicialReponsesCovid19Africa.pdf accessed 18 September 2024

iNTAKA Centre for Law and Technology 2024 https://www.intaka.capetown/

iNTAKA Centre for Law and Technology 2024 LawTech Lab https://www.intaka.capetown/ accessed 4 February 2024

Kenya News Agency 2020 https://www.kenyanews.go.ke/kra-unveils-online-dispute-resolution-mechanism/

Kenya News Agency 2020 KRA Unveils Online Dispute Resolution Mechanism https://www.kenyanews.go.ke/kra-unveils-online-dispute-resolution-mechanism/ accessed 5 February 2024

Lederer 2018 https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/01/11/new-found-emphasis-institutional-arbitration-india/

Lederer N 2018 The UNCITRAL Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution – Paper Tiger or Game Changer https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/01/11/new-found-emphasis-institutional-arbitration-india/ accessed 6 February 2024

Legal Suite 2024 https://www.legal-suite.com

Legal Suite 2024 Legal Software that Powers Progress https://www.legal-suite.com accessed 13 February 2024

LexisNexis 2024 https://www.lexisnexis.co.za/workflow-solutions

LexisNexis 2024 Workflow Solutions https://www.lexisnexis.co.za/ workflow-solutions accessed 13 January 2024

New Hampshire Judicial Branch 2024 https://www.courts.nh.gov/our-courts/superior-court/caselines

New Hampshire Judicial Branch 2024 Introducing CaseLines for NH Superior Court https://www.courts.nh.gov/our-courts/superior-court/caselines accessed 3 February 2024

SAIIPL date unknown://saiipl.co.za/domain-names/

South African Institute of Intellectual Property Law date unknown Domain Names https://saiipl.co.za/domain-names/ accessed 18 September 2024

SALT Network 2024 https://www.saltnetwork.co.za/

SALT Network 2024 The South African Legal Technology Network https://www.saltnetwork.co.za/ accessed 11 February 2024

Schmitz 2020 https://ssrn.com/abstract=3525757

Schmitz AJ 2020 Dangers of Digitizing Due Process https://ssrn.com/abstract=3525757 accessed 21 July 2024

South African Judiciary 2024 https://www.judiciary.org.za/index.php/court-online/about-court-online

South African Judiciary 2024 About Court Online https://www.judiciary.org.za/index.php/court-online/about-court-online accessed 5 February 2024

Superior Court of Justice 2024 https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/caselines/ cl-guide/

Superior Court of Justice 2024 CaseLines in the Superior Court of Justice: A Guide to Requirements https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/caselines/cl-guide/ accessed 21 January 2024

The South African 2020 https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/gauteng-high-court-security-breach-14-october/

The South African 2020 Gauteng High Court "Security Breach" Blamed for Maladministration https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/gauteng-high-court-security-breach-14-october/ accessed 23 February 2024

Traffic Penalty Tribunal date unknown https://www.trafficpenalty tribunal.gov.uk/

Traffic Penalty Tribunal date unknown Home https://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/ accessed 23 February 2024

Uitelkaar date unknown https://uitelkaar.nl/

Uitelkaar date unknown Divorce on Good Terms https://uitelkaar.nl/ accessed 18 September 2024

Witting 2018 https://leidenlawblog.nl/articles/leveraging-technology-to-enhance-access-to-justice-for-children-in-africa

Witting S 2018 Leveraging Technology to Enhance Access to Justice for Children in Africa https://leidenlawblog.nl/articles/leveraging-technology-to-enhance-access-to-justice-for-children-in-africa accessed 6 February 2024

ZADNA date unknown https://zadna.org.za

.za Domain Name Authority date unknown Home https://zadna.org.za accessed 18 September 2024

List of Abbreviations