Legal assistance by video conferencing: what is known? (Justice Issues Paper 15) (2011) Cite this report

Summary of findings

• The volume and quality of available research into the use of video conferencing for the provision of legal assistance is very limited, with no studies able to provide conclusive evidence about the ‘effectiveness’ of video conferencing compared to telephone and ‘in-person’ services for legal assistance. Nevertheless, we were able to draw useful insights from the material reviewed.
• The strongest finding that can be drawn from the literature is that the uptake of legal assistance by video conferencing, particularly in rural Australia, has been far less than had been expected by the service providers. The limited uptake of video conferencing where it has been made available has limited the potential impact of this technology in broadening access to legal help.
• Across the material reviewed, lawyers and clients preferred in-person meetings to video conferencing. However, video conferencing was generally reported to be an acceptable and functional interface for clients and lawyers when in-person meetings were not possible. These observations are consistent with the findings of robust health sector studies into the use of video conferencing for doctor–patient consultations.
• When compared to the telephone, lawyers reported the advantage of being able to observe client responses, to better engage with their clients and to exchange documents. By contrast, clients appeared to focus more on issues of convenience and privacy, some preferring to speak to a lawyer by telephone from their own home rather than seeing a lawyer face to face by video conferencing.
• A number of the reviewed studies attributed savings to the use of video conferencing compared to provision of in-person services, particularly in terms of reduced time and costs in travelling to remote locations. However, until studies also factor costs such as technology, set up and maintenance and support costs at two locations (the lawyer and client end) and the level of service usage, we cannot say whether video conferencing provides a more cost effective alternative to face to face legal assistance in RRR areas. We note that web-based applications may well improve the price and accessibility of video conferencing. However, consideration must also be given to the barriers that disadvantaged people face in 1) accessing this technology and 2) accessing legal assistance.
• While further research is required to identify the relative impact of any or all of the following factors, the uptake and use of video conferencing for legal assistance appears to be affected by:
• the convenience, privacy and confidentiality of video conferencing compared to other available modes of assistance
• whether video conferencing offers services or benefits that are not already available through existing legal services, including services available by telephone, such as access to specialist services or more timely assistance
• the quality and reliability of the video conferencing (e.g. drop outs, picture quality)
• the willingness of clients, lawyers and the host service at the client end to use this form of technology for legal assistance.

1. If video conferencing is to be considered for the provision of legal assistance services in RRR areas:
1. particular attention should be paid to the factors identified in this study as potentially affecting the uptake and ongoing use of this mode of assistance (listed above)
2. the effectiveness of the video conferencing services in reaching and providing services to and meeting the needs of disadvantaged clients in RRR areas should be monitored and evaluated.
2. If video conferencing is to be used as a form of outreach, then the recommendations of the Foundation’s review, Outreach services to people with complex needs: what works? (Forell & Gray, 2009) should also be taken into account — particularly with regards to supporting and building relationships with the intermediaries who are ‘problem noticers’, and who facilitate contact between clients and lawyers (see the Discussion section).
3. Video conferencing is widely used for communication between lawyers and clients in prison but there has been virtually no evaluation of this use. One unanswered question concerns how effective this form of communication is, compared to the alternatives, particularly for those disadvantaged client groups who constitute a considerable proportion of the prison population. We suggest this as an important question for future research.
4. A second important question for future research concerns the costs and benefits of video conferencing for the provision of legal assistance in rural areas compared to telephone and face to face legal assistance.