New research reveals the current reality of digital exclusion for legal services consumers and proposes practical steps for inclusive everyday practice
Digitisation promises more efficient and convenient legal services and for many clients and legal firms that’s true. But the results of our recent joint Digital Exclusion Research show that for large numbers of people, digital-first pathways slow down cases, erode autonomy and sometimes stop matters progressing at all.
The research involving 454 digitally excluded service users, 30 in‑depth interviews, and conversations with nine national organisations provides clear evidence that digital exclusion is substantial and although digital options may increase efficiency for providers, they can inadvertently deepen inequalities if poorly designed and clients are not supported.
This article distils the evidence and sets out practical, proportionate actions to make services both efficient and equitable.
Who is “digitally excluded” in legal contexts?
Digital exclusion is multifaceted and for the research it was defined across four overlapping dimensions:
- access (reliable internet and devices),
- affordability (cost of connectivity, equipment, and repairs)
- ability (skills and confidence to use digital tools), and
- attitude (trust, motivation and willingness to share sensitive information online).
Crucially, exclusion is contextual – someone who scrolls social media daily, may still feel unable to navigate an online probate application or upload evidence to a portal. As one participant put it, “Just because I’m on Facebook doesn’t mean I can handle legal stuff online.”
It’s easy to make assumptions and the following key findings support the need for a different approach:
- Internet access does not equate to online confidence and independence. Although 90% of respondents had some form of internet at home, half (50%) lacked confidence using it for complex tasks like legal issues, and 56% “always” or “often” relied on family, friends, or neighbours to access online services. That reliance raises confidentiality and timeliness risks, such a missed deadlines.
- Digital as the norm is not workable for all. 82% of respondents were asked to complete some part of their legal service online; only 1 in 5 managed to do this independently.
- Speed and efficiency is not universally realised. While 15% said online steps reduced the time it took to resolve their case, the majority (56%) said they increased the time to resolve their issue; 5% could not resolve their matter because of online requirements.
- Outcomes can improve, but only when design and support is right. Among those who completed cases online, 71% believed doing so led to a better outcome. While there was evidence that well‑designed digital tools combined with support can work for some, for others they introduced confusion, delay, or exclusion.
- Support is patchy and reactive. Only 19% respondents said help was offered proactively; many were told to use friends/family (40%) or signposted to support or resources outside the firm (42%), rather than receiving assistance from the firms or non‑digital options.
Stakeholders warn that in parts of the legal system, particularly where government processes are involved, services are increasingly “digital by default”, for example probate applications.
By contrast, most high street firms are not fully digital by default. Firms can help alleviate digital barriers, for example by providing assistance submitting forms and managing online portals. However, support is not universal. Some clients still face initial digital hurdles in finding and contacting a firm. Others report firms expecting completion of online elements independently, such as scanning and sending documents and email communication. The result is a patchwork and while engaging a firm may reduce some barriers, digital exclusion shapes how and whether people can access legal services in the first place.
Why this matters to your practice (even if your clients “seem” to be online)
Legal work is high‑stakes, complex and emotionally charged. Clients may be grieving, caring, unwell, or under financial strain. In this context, confidence and trust are crucial. The research captures the emotional toll on clients, including anxiety about “getting it wrong,” shame in asking for help, and withdrawal when systems feel impenetrable. Several interviewees abandoned matters entirely, not because their need for legal assistance vanished, but because the digital barrier felt insurmountable.
From a firm’s perspective, digital exclusion is not just a social problem; it’s a business and professional risk:
- Delays and avoidable chasing when clients cannot complete online steps.
- Privacy and consent risks when relatives or friends act as “proxy users.”
- Complaints if alternatives and reasonable adjustments are not offered or documented.
What “good” looks like
The availability of choice emerged as a central theme when considering how firms can ensure provision of good, inclusive legal services. Participants wanted the flexibility to use digital tools when they worked well, but also the reassurance of offline alternatives. Where firms combined digital systems with human contact, for example offering both email and postal copies, or following up a digital form with a phone call, participants felt more supported, more respected, and more in control.
The findings highlight several practical and affordable steps for firms that could improve access and trust:
- Maintain and promote offline routes. Offer viable phone, post, and face‑to‑face routes as standard practice, not only when requested. 88% of respondents said offline alternatives are important.
- Proactively assess digital confidence. At the outset ask simple screening questions about digital access and confidence; don’t wait for clients to confess difficulties. Only 19% said support was proactively offered.
- Use clear, plain, jargon free, language. Break down complex processes into small, manageable steps; avoid jargon; confirm receipt and next actions.
- Work with community networks to ensure clients can access reliable, confidential support when needed.
- Avoid outsourcing responsibility. Signposting to libraries or family help is not a substitute for firms being accountable for providing support.
Inclusion by Default
The overarching message of this research is clear: digital transformation is not inherently progressive. While digitisation can bring efficiencies, it must not come at the expense of fairness, accessibility, and trust. For many digitally excluded clients, online systems lengthen timescales, reduce autonomy, and deter them from seeking help in the future.
Digital transformation expands access only when choice, human contact, and proactive support are built in. The evidence is clear: when digital tools are well designed and paired with support, outcomes improve. When they are imposed as the only route, timelines lengthen and some clients may opt out entirely.
Your practice can be both efficient and fair by making inclusion the default, not the exception.
