Institutional design meets technological change.
Institutions are entering a period of structural transition as advances in artificial intelligence reshape how public power is exercised and governed.
A Report from 2036.
It is 2036 and justice is no longer experienced as a sequence of in-person attendances at court events. The physical elements of the justice system - registries, paper files, court rooms, sheriffs, and court clerks have largely disappeared, giving way to a digital eco-system that is accessible and user-friendly. Process, time and cost is proportionate to the value and complexity of the dispute being resolved. A glimpse into the future of justice reveals the architectural choices that underpinned transformative change and the benefits that flow from interoperability, digitally structured pathways, and carefully governed artificial intelligence.
What emerges is not a story of technological revolution, but of policy pragmatism in the face of inevitability.
Adaptation at pace.
Born-Digital Courts and the Architecture of Modern Justice.
Digitally native courts are beginning to operate alongside legacy institutions, enabling proportionate dispute pathways, strengthening administrative coherence, and supporting more accessible participation. Data emerging from born-digital courts established internationally reveals this approach to have substantial advantages in the design and build phases, and in the implementation and pilot phases. These include lower risk profile, especially in data migration and organisational change / resistance; expedited timelines to MVP and launch; better user-comes through process simplification; faster resolution times and lower delivery costs.
Justice sector modernisation is no longer a technology challenge. It is now a question of political ambition, and institutional design.
As the gap between public expectations and justice sector performance widens, the administration of justice will increasingly bear on both economic confidence and public trust in the decades ahead.
Institutional Design and the capacity of Modern States.
Courts are adopting AI not as a single reform program, but through a growing set of tools: guided filing, triage, translation, transcription, scheduling optimisation, decision support, and drafting assistance. Many of these tools will be invisible to court users. Collectively, they reshape how public authority is exercised: what is seen, what is prioritised, what is delayed, and what becomes decisive. This piece offers a practical taxonomy of court AI, a simple test for measuring how much authority a tool exercises in practice, and concrete governance requirements that preserve legitimacy: disclosure, contestability, auditability, and human responsibility built into workflow and procurement. The aim is not to slow adoption, but to ensure that modernisation increases capability without outsourcing accountability.
Artificial Intelligence arrives in the Courts.
Institutional design shapes how authority is exercised long before policy is debated. When architecture aligns legitimacy, accessibility, and accountability, public systems become easier to navigate and more resilient under strain. This essay examines how capable states approach institutional renewal — not through disruption, but through deliberate design that preserves trust while enabling adaptation.