Interview

Jurata had a discussion with Dr. iur. Jlona Caduff, Legal Counsel + Legal Designer and founder and owner of Legal by Design stock corporation, about the exciting question of how access to the law can be improved. She has been dealing with the relatively young, but rapidly gaining worldwide attention, Legal Design approach since 2019.

Jlona, could you tell us what Legal Design is about?

Legal Design aims to prepare legal topics understandably and appealingly for the needs of users, meaning designing the information content-wise, visually, linguistically, and "user-centered".

What does "Access to Justice" personally mean to you, and where do you see the relevance of Legal Design in legislation?

Access to Justice means three pillars for me: The claim stands and falls initially with the first pillar: Protection and justice for all, of course, particularly the observance 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 and financially bearable support for those seeking justice in enforcing their rights.

A lot is being done in these two areas in Switzerland, and I think we are relatively well-positioned – especially, of course, in comparison to certain other countries. New companies and business models constantly emerge, questioning 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.

True, a lot is happening at the moment, and we at Jurata also want to make an impact in cost transparency, for example – but where do you still see gaps in the system in Switzerland?

Access to Justice also includes for me a third pillar: It already begins with the fact that my elderly but mentally very fit neighbor can inform herself as independently and easily as possible about what she should include in her will, so that her last will can actually be fulfilled. Especially in simple family and financial cases, as is the case with her.

Access to Justice also means for me that a company must be able to understand the basic data protection requirements and implement them without an internal legal or compliance department or high external advisory costs.

And of course, that contractors understand what they are signing with what consequences and why.

From my point of view, this pillar is the biggest problem today; we still have to work on that. And Legal Design can contribute to the solution.

But isn't it the job of lawyers to explain and advise those seeking justice about the contents 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 business every time I want to take a shower.

With contracts and instructions, it is in the fundamental interest of companies, in my view, to make access as independent, understandable, and appealing to their addressees as possible – especially in times when customer and employee satisfaction as well as compliance issues (allegedly) play such a significant role.

And what does that mean for the design of laws?

There can be different opinions on 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 instructing "citizens"? Or are they exclusively aimed at lawyers because our complex legal system and the interplay of the norms can only be understood with legal education anyway? Or are laws primarily even just a documentation of the substantive 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 target conflicts and compromises. However, when I see our laws and all the problems with their interpretation and application, I am not sure if such compromise solutions are suitable for meeting the different requirements.

In the design of laws that are aimed at the broad mass of the population, in my view, the needs of their addressees should be much more weighted than it is the case today. For very specific topics, which are anyway only consulted and applied by a few specialists, I could imagine a lower standard.

But isn't it clear that all laws in the first instance must target non-legally trained citizens?

Yes, that's fundamentally the case. The Federal Chancellery website explicitly states that legal rules can only have an impact if they are understood by the people who have to apply them, which is why they should be citizen-oriented, transparent, and understandable. But I have the impression that this claim today is not or only partially fulfilled.

What do you think is the reason for that?

As mentioned, I think that the different functions, target conflicts, and the need for compromises significantly contribute to this.

Furthermore, it is questionable whether legal norms that have to apply to an indefinite group of people and a variety of different cases can fulfill an instructional function and serve as a reference work.

An additional question is whether the organization and legislative processes in Switzerland even enable the fulfillment of this claim or perhaps hinder it. In the federal administration, there are professional law editors who uncover substantive and systematic inconsistencies in the drafts and ensure linguistic clarity. But given the volume of legal texts, the limited resources, and the tight leeway due to the political opinion-forming process, their possibilities are probably limited.

Would purely linguistic improvements be enough from your point of view?

No, of course not. It also includes that the sought after information is found, that those seeking justice can navigate sensibly through the topics in context and from the user's perspective, and that the information is organized and presented with the most appropriate means. Legal Design, as I understand and apply it, encompasses information and communication design, which goes much further than just linguistic means.

We came across your very illustrative example of a reformulation of the provision on profiling in the new data protection law during our research. Wouldn't such linguistic adjustments already help many people seeking justice?

It's not primarily about linguistic changes, the wording is practically identical. This simple example shows that we have significantly more tools in the toolbox than just language. Here, for instance, I separated different categories of information, created a visual hierarchy, incorporated 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 optimally use the means available to us.

Fascinating. If we put aside a comprehensive system change in our legislation, which we probably – if at all – will not experience so quickly: What could be improved in the current system from your perspective?

There are different approaches.

Laws are published online and freely accessible. But the search, navigation, and orientation for those seeking justice is still far from real user-friendliness. Someone who is not legally trained has little chance of even finding the laws and regulations relevant to their questions.

To return to the example of my neighbor: Searching for "testament" results in 357 hits, most of which are irrelevant international treaties for her company purpose – seriously, how is she supposed to find her way through that?

Or consider a product manager in an IT company who wants to develop, produce, and distribute their service in compliance with data protection laws: They will find the data protection law, but even with diligent study, they will only partially understand what they actually need to do.

Isn't another problem that legislative concepts are often already very complicated?

Definitely. The concepts are the result of political processes, divergent interests, and corresponding compromises. It is challenging to create simple, understandable, and manageable concepts for their addressees on this basis.

Therefore, it is all the more important to invest in the target-appropriate design of complex concepts. It would be worth trying to prepare certain topics visually and graphically. I haven't seen any guidelines that prohibit such actions. Even a slightly more user-friendly layout and an optical guide for the readers could improve accessibility. Or, for example, ensuring the visibility of legal definitions where they are effectively used.

And if all that weren't 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 done with the corona topics. I could imagine that this could even lead to a kind of "feedback" over time towards simplifying the conceptual, structural, and linguistic design of our formal legislation.

Many good approaches – and how could it now be concretely implemented to bring this third pillar of the Access to Justice claim to life in legislation? How do you see your role as a flagbearer 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 an impact in legislation as well – but I fear that would be a larger lobbying task, for which it takes players with more weight than me. However, even in the corporate environment, which can be directly and much more quickly influenced, much more can be done to improve accessibility to legal topics; we are only at the very beginning there, too.

Very good – we too will stubbornly pursue our mission of better and broader Access to Justice. One last question in conclusion: How did it go with your neighbor?

I had printed out the relevant legal articles on inheritance law and a leaflet on the difference between an heir designation and a bequest for her. A few days later, she brought me a box of pralines with a card in which she only thanked me for the "very useful" leaflet – I think that already says it all…

Yes, that gives food for thought. We sincerely thank you for the interesting conversation and wish you much fun and success on your way! And to all interested readers, we recommend the Legal by Design stock corporation website which provides 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 sector, which he gained, among other things, in renowned commercial law firms. He has also conducted research at the intersection of law and IT. At the start of the Corona crisis, Luca co-founded the non-profit legal advisory 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 life, he enjoys engaging in all kinds of sports. 💪🏼