Jlona, could you tell us what Legal Design is all about?
Legal Design aims to make legal topics understandable and appealing for the needs of users, i.e. to design the information in terms of content, visuals, language and in a "user-centered" way.
What does «Access to Justice» mean to you personally and where do you see the relevance of Legal Design in legislation?
For me, Access to Justice has 3 pillars: The claim stands and falls first of all with the first pillar: protection and justice for all, in particular, of course, the preservation of human rights and the protection of minorities.
A second pillar is the enforceability of these claims: access to courts and authorities as well as professional support that is financially affordable for those seeking justice in enforcing their rights.
Much is being done in these two areas in Switzerland and I think we are in a reasonably good position – especially, of course, in comparison to certain other countries. New companies and business models are constantly emerging that challenge the previous services and cost factors of professional legal support. Just think of legal advice services for under CHF 100 per hour, "step-in" legal advice shops and the numerous platforms where you can download templates and contract templates for little money.
That's true, there's a lot going on at the moment and we at Jurata also want to set impulses, e.g. in the area of cost transparency – but where do you still see gaps in the system in Switzerland?
For me, Access to Justice also includes a third pillar: It starts with my elderly but mentally very fit neighbor being able to find out as independently and easily as possible what she should do in her will so that her last will can actually be complied with. Especially in family-wise and financially simple cases, as is the case with her.
For me, Access to Justice also means that a company must be able to understand the basic data protection requirements and implement them even without an internal legal or compliance department or high external consulting costs.
And of course, that contracting parties understand what they are signing, why and with what consequences.
From my point of view, this pillar is the biggest problem today, we still have to work on it. And that's where Legal Design can contribute to the solution.
But isn't it the job of lawyers to inform and advise those seeking justice about the content of laws and contracts?
In complex cases, yes of course. If I want to build a house, I need architects, structural engineers, construction managers, electricians, etc. But if I have a bathroom, I don't want to have to call the plumbing shop every time to take a shower.
When it comes to contracts and instructions, from my point of view it is in the very own interest of companies to make access for their addressees as independent, understandable and appealing as possible – especially in times when customer and employee satisfaction as well as compliance issues (allegedly) play such a big role.
And what does that mean for the design of laws?
One can have different opinions about this. Everyone has to follow laws, that much is clear. But the crucial questions are probably: Should and can laws serve directly as reference works for the instruction of "citizens"? Or are they aimed exclusively at lawyers, because our complicated legal system and the interplay of norms can only be understood with legal training anyway? Or are laws in the first place even just a documentation of the content results of our (political) legislative processes?
What is your opinion on this?
The answer is not simple – it is an interplay of all three functions with corresponding conflicting goals and trade-offs. But when I see our laws and all the problems with their interpretation and application, I am not sure whether such compromise solutions are suitable to meet the different requirements.
In the design of laws aimed at the broad mass of the population, from my point of view, the needs of their addressees would have to be weighted much higher than is the case today. For very specific topics that are only consulted and applied by a few specialists anyway, I could imagine a lower bar.
But isn't it clear that all laws must be aimed primarily at citizens who are not legally trained?
Yes, that is basically the case. On the website of the Federal Chancellery it is also explicitly stated that legal provisions can only have an effect if they are understood by the people who have to apply the provisions, which is why they should be close to the citizens, transparent and understandable. But I have the impression that this claim is not or only partially fulfilled today.
What do you think is the reason for this?
As mentioned, I think that the different functions, conflicting goals and the need for compromises contribute significantly to this.
It is also questionable whether legal norms, which must apply to an indefinite group of persons and a variety of different cases, can fulfill an instructional function and serve as a reference work.
Another question is whether the organization and legislative processes in Switzerland enable or at least complicate the fulfillment of this claim. In the Federal Administration, there are professional legislative editors who uncover content and systematic contradictions in the drafts and ensure linguistic clarity. But given the volume of legislative texts, tight resources and the narrow scope resulting from the political opinion-forming process, their options are probably limited.
Would purely linguistic improvements be sufficient from your point of view?
No, of course not. This also includes that the information sought is found, those seeking justice can navigate through the topics logically, in context and from the user's perspective, and the information is organized and presented using the most appropriate means. Legal Design, as I understand and apply it, includes information and communication design, which goes much further than just linguistic means.
During our research, we came across your very vivid example of a reformulation of the provision on profiling in the new Data Protection Act. Wouldn't such linguistic adjustments already help many people seeking justice?
It is not primarily about linguistic changes, the wording is practically identical. This simple example shows that we have much more tools in our bag of tricks than just language. Here, for example, I separated different categories of information, formed a visual hierarchy, built in optical filters and used a list format. As information designers, we must learn to make information processing as easy as possible for the addressees and to use the tools available to us optimally for this purpose.
Exciting. Leaving aside a more comprehensive system change in our legislation, which we probably won't experience anytime soon, if at all: What do you think could be improved in the current system?
There are various approaches to this.
Laws are published online and freely accessible. But search, navigation and orientation for those seeking justice are still far from real user-friendliness. Someone who is not legally trained has little chance of finding the laws and regulations relevant to their questions at all.
To return to the example of my neighbor: in the keyword search "testament", 357 hits appear, most of which are international agreements irrelevant to her purpose – seriously, how is she supposed to find her way around?
Or think of a product manager in an IT company who wants to develop, produce and distribute her service in compliance with data protection laws: she will find the Data Protection Act, but even after conscientious study she will only partially understand what she specifically has to do.
Isn't another problem that legislative concepts are often already very complicated?
Absolutely. The concepts are the result of political processes, diverging interests and corresponding compromises. It is difficult to create simple, understandable and manageable concepts for their addressees on this basis.
Therefore, it is all the more important to invest in the addressee-oriented design of complicated concepts. It would be worth a try to present certain topics visually and graphically. I haven't seen any guidelines that would forbid such a thing. Even a slightly more user-friendly layout and visual guidance for readers could improve accessibility. Or, for example, ensure the visibility of legal definitions where they are effectively used.
And if all that were not feasible?
In addition to the official legal texts, one could provide a "decoding" with parallel preparation of the most important elements in an understandable and appealing form, as is currently being done in the Corona topics. I could imagine that over time this could even lead to a kind of "feedback loop" towards simplifying the conceptual, structural and linguistic design of our formal legislation.
Many good approaches – and how could this third pillar of the Access to Justice claim concretely be brought to life in legislation now? How do you see your role as a flag bearer of the Legal Design topic in Switzerland?
You expect me to take on the Legal Design topic in legislation? Of course, it would be extremely exciting to make a difference in legislation as well – but I fear that would be a major lobbying task that requires players with greater weight than me. But also in the corporate environment, which can be influenced directly and much faster, a lot can still be done for better accessibility to legal topics; here too, we are only at the very beginning.
Very good – we too will persistently pursue our mission of a better and broader Access to Justice. One last question to conclude: How did things continue with your neighbor?
I printed out the relevant legal articles on inheritance law and an information sheet on the difference between inheritance and legacy. A few days later she brought me a box of chocolates with a card, in which she only thanked me for the "very useful" information sheet – I think that says it all...
Yes, that makes you think. Thank you very much for the interesting conversation and we wish you continued fun and success on your path! And we highly recommend the Webseite der Legal by Design LLC to all interested readers, where they can find further information and inspiration on the subject of Legal Design.
The interview was conducted by Luca Fábián.
About Luca Fábián
Luca holds a Master of Law from the University of Zurich and has diverse experience in the legal industry, which he gained, among other things, in renowned commercial law firms. He has also conducted research at the interface between law and IT. At the beginning of the Corona crisis, Luca co-founded the non-profit legal advice service Legal Help and scaled it to over 100 volunteers. Luca combines strategic flair and great enthusiasm for working in a passionate team. To balance the hectic startup routine, he enjoys doing all kinds of sports. 💪🏼
