DIY Court Registration By JurisCreators Editorial Team, led by Kazuha May 17, 2026 The Big Picture The legal landscape is undergoing a profound, if uneven, transformation, marked by an accelerating shift towards the digital, the decentralized, and, increasingly, the do-it-yourself. This phenomenon, which we term "DIY Court Registration," is not a monolithic policy initiative but rather an emergent, fragmented reality born from the convergence of technological advancements, persistent access-to-justice gaps, and a public increasingly accustomed to self-service paradigms. Why this matters right now is underscored by stark data: according to the Legal Services Corporation’s 2022 Justice Gap Report, 74% of low-income Americans faced at least one civil legal problem in the past year, and for a staggering 92% of those problems, they received inadequate or no legal help. This pervasive unmet need creates fertile ground for non-traditional approaches to legal engagement, pushing individuals and even small entities to navigate complex court systems with minimal, if any, professional assistance. The implications for judicial administration, legal ethics, and the very definition of legal representation are immense and pressing. Consider the exponential growth in electronic filing systems. As of 2023, the vast majority of federal courts mandate e-filing, and state courts are rapidly following suit, with jurisdictions like California and Texas having near-universal e-filing for civil cases. While initially designed to streamline processes for legal professionals, these digital portals inadvertently lower the barrier to entry for pro se litigants, offering a pathway to initiate proceedings, file motions, and even register new legal entities without direct attorney intervention. This technological enablement is not without its perils. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts reported a 15% increase in pro se filings in federal courts between 2010 and 2020, a trend that places immense strain on court clerks and judges who must grapple with often technically deficient or procedurally flawed submissions. This tension between enhanced access and procedural integrity forms the crux of the DIY Court Registration challenge, demanding immediate attention from policymakers, legal scholars, and technology developers alike. The stakes are nothing less than the legitimacy and efficacy of the justice system in the digital age. The Current Landscape The notion of Do-It-Yourself (DIY) court registration, while not a fully realized, unified system, is manifesting in fragmented yet significant ways across the American legal landscape. This emergent trend is driven by a confluence of factors: the persistent access-to-justice gap, technological advancements in court administration, and the entrepreneurial spirit of legal tech companies. Data from the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) consistently shows that in 2022, approximately 74% of low-income Americans faced at least one civil legal problem, and for a staggering 92% of those, the problems received inadequate or no legal help. This stark reality fuels the demand for simpler, more accessible pathways to court engagement, even without direct legal representation. Leading the charge in enabling more direct public interaction with court systems are state-level e-filing initiatives. California’s eFileCA, for instance, allows self-represented litigants to file documents in many civil cases directly through a portal, bypassing traditional paper processes and, often, the need for an attorney for routine submissions. Similarly, Texas’s eFileTexas system, utilized by over 254 counties, has processed millions of filings annually since its full implementation in 2016, a significant portion of which originate from individuals or small businesses directly. These systems, while primarily focused on document submission rather than comprehensive case initiation, represent a critical step towards DIY court engagement. Beyond governmental initiatives, private sector innovators are also carving out niches. Companies like LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer have long offered services for forming business entities, creating wills, and drafting basic legal documents. While not directly "registering" a court case, their platforms simplify the prerequisite steps that often lead to court involvement, such as the formal registration of a Limited Liability Company (LLC) or a non-profit organization with state secretaries of state. For example, LegalZoom reported assisting over four million customers as of 2023 with various legal needs, many of which involve navigating state-level bureaucratic registration processes that are precursors to potential court interactions. Furthermore, the rise of online dispute resolution (ODR) platforms, such as those pioneered by Modria (now part of Tyler Technologies) and used in various states, including Michigan for small claims and landlord-tenant disputes, allows parties to resolve conflicts and even register mediated agreements without ever stepping into a physical courtroom. These platforms represent a more advanced form of DIY court engagement, where the entire resolution process, from initial submission to final agreement registration, occurs digitally. While these systems are primarily for dispute resolution rather than traditional case initiation, they underscore a broader societal shift towards digital, self-service legal processes that reduce reliance on traditional legal intermediaries. The current landscape, therefore, is characterized by a patchwork of state-driven e-filing systems, private legal tech facilitating preliminary steps, and burgeoning ODR platforms, all contributing to a nascent, fragmented but undeniable trend towards greater DIY court registration. How It Works The technical architecture underpinning DIY court registration systems represents a complex interplay of front-end user interfaces, secure back-end databases, and sophisticated integration layers designed to bridge the chasm between public access and judicial information systems. At its core, a DIY registration portal, such as those being piloted in certain limited contexts by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) in 2023, functions as a highly specialized web application. Users typically initiate the process through a secure web portal, often requiring multi-factor authentication, consistent with the security protocols outlined in the Department of Justice’s 2022 guidelines for federal e-filing systems. This front-end interface, designed for intuitive navigation, abstracts the underlying legal complexities, guiding users through a series of structured prompts and conditional logic fields. For instance, registering a small claims action might involve an initial "case type" selection, which then dynamically presents relevant forms and information fields, pre-populating data where possible from linked identity verification services like those provided by LexisNexis or Thomson Reuters for legal professionals. Once a user completes the required fields and uploads any necessary documentation—often leveraging optical character recognition (OCR) technology to parse data from scanned documents, a feature increasingly common in systems like the Clerk of Courts portal in Miami-Dade County, Florida since 2021—the system initiates a series of validation checks. These checks are not merely cosmetic; they involve programmatic verification against predefined rulesets derived from state and local procedural codes. For example, a system might automatically flag missing parties, incorrect venue information, or non-compliant document formatting, referencing the specific rules of civil procedure applicable in that jurisdiction. This automated pre-screening aims to reduce the burden on court clerks, who traditionally perform these manual reviews. Upon successful validation, the submitted data and documents are packaged into a standardized electronic format, frequently XML or JSON, conforming to industry standards like the Legal XML Exchange Data Standard (LEXS) or the more broadly adopted National Information Exchange Model (NIEM) utilized by various government agencies, including some state court systems since the mid-2010s. The crucial next step involves the secure transmission and integration of this electronic package into the court's core Case Management System (CMS). This integration layer is arguably the most technically demanding component. It often relies on Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) that allow the DIY portal to communicate directly with the CMS, such as Odyssey by Tyler Technologies, which is widely deployed across thousands of U.S. courts, or custom-built legacy systems. The API acts as a digital translator, ensuring that the structured data from the DIY portal is correctly mapped to the appropriate fields within the CMS, initiating a new case file, assigning a case number, and recording the filing date and time. This real-time or near real-time data exchange minimizes data entry errors and ensures that the court’s official record reflects the DIY submission accurately and promptly. Furthermore, the system typically generates automated confirmations, sending digital receipts and initial case information to the filer, often via secure email or through a dedicated user dashboard, enhancing transparency and user engagement throughout the registration lifecycle, a practice increasingly advocated by organizations like the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) in its 2022 technology initiatives. The Case For The drive toward DIY court registration is fundamentally an access to justice issue, a powerful imperative that aligns with core democratic principles and modern technological capabilities. Proponents argue that empowering individuals and non-legal entities to directly register certain court-related actions significantly lowers barriers to legal recourse, thereby democratizing access to a system often perceived as opaque and prohibitively expensive. This argument is not merely theoretical; it is grounded in empirical evidence and the evolving landscape of digital governance. One of the strongest arguments for DIY court registration centers on cost reduction. The traditional model, requiring legal professional intermediation for even routine filings, imposes substantial financial burdens. For instance, the average hourly rate for attorneys in the United States can range from $200 to $500, according to a 2023 Thomson Reuters report on legal market insights. For individuals and small businesses navigating straightforward matters like small claims, uncontested divorces, or basic business entity registrations, these costs can be a significant deterrent, effectively denying justice. DIY registration, facilitated by user-friendly online portals, bypasses these fees, enabling more citizens to pursue legitimate claims or fulfill necessary legal obligations. This directly addresses the "justice gap" identified by organizations like the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), which reported in its 2022 Justice Gap Study that 74% of low-income households experienced at least one civil legal problem in the past year, with many unable to obtain legal assistance. Beyond cost, efficiency is a critical driver. The digital transformation of court systems, exemplified by initiatives like the e-filing mandates in federal courts under the Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system, demonstrates the potential for streamlined processes. While ECF still largely presumes legal representation, its underlying technological infrastructure could be adapted for pro se litigants. States like California, with its pioneering efforts in online dispute resolution (ODR) and self-help centers, have shown that guided digital pathways can reduce processing times and administrative burdens for courts and litigants alike. The ability for a small business to register a new entity or file a simple lien directly, without waiting for attorney availability or administrative processing, accelerates commerce and resolves disputes more swiftly. The Supreme Court of Ohio’s “e-filing” system, operational since 2017, processes thousands of filings annually, demonstrating the reliability and scalability of digital interfaces for court interactions. These systems, when designed with the end-user in mind, not only empower the public but also free up court staff to focus on more complex tasks, enhancing overall judicial efficiency. Furthermore, DIY court registration fosters greater transparency and understanding of the legal system. When individuals are guided through the process of filling out forms and understanding procedural steps, they gain a direct insight into the machinery of justice. This demystification can lead to increased public trust and engagement. The development of interactive, plain-language legal forms by entities like the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) and various state bar associations provides a template for how complex legal requirements can be translated into accessible formats suitable for self-service. For example, the State of Illinois’s "Illinois Guide to the Courts" offers step-by-step instructions for common pro se filings, illustrating a foundational commitment to citizen empowerment that DIY registration seeks to fully realize. This shift from an attorney-centric model to a citizen-centric one represents a profound reorientation, recognizing the right of individuals to directly interact with their justice system. The promise of DIY court registration, while superficially appealing to notions of accessibility and cost-saving, crumbles under the weight of established legal principles and practical realities, presenting a compelling case against its widespread implementation. The most significant concern revolves around the **erosion of due process and the potential for systemic injustice**. As Justice Antonin Scalia frequently emphasized, the adversarial system, when functioning correctly, relies on competent advocacy from both sides. When one party, particularly a pro se litigant utilizing a DIY registration system, lacks the intricate understanding of procedural rules, evidentiary standards, and substantive law, the playing field becomes inherently uneven. This isn't merely about filing a form; it's about understanding *what* to file, *when* to file it, and *how* to articulate the legal basis for relief. The **complexity of legal language and procedure** forms an impenetrable barrier for most laypersons, even with the most intuitive online portal. A 2021 study by the Legal Services Corporation, for instance, revealed that over 70% of low-income Americans faced at least one civil legal problem in the past year, yet only 10% received adequate legal help. While this highlights a need for access, it also underscores the deep-seated difficulties individuals face in navigating the legal system unassisted. DIY registration platforms, no matter how well-designed, cannot imbue a user with the legal acumen required to draft a complaint that withstands a motion to dismiss, or to identify the correct parties, jurisdiction, and venue. The risk of **dismissal due to procedural errors or substantive deficiencies** skyrockets, leading to wasted court resources, frustrated litigants, and ultimately, a denial of justice that is far more detrimental than the initial cost of legal counsel. Furthermore, the **security and integrity of court records** are paramount. Centralized, digital registration systems, while efficient, present attractive targets for cyberattacks. The 2020 SolarWinds attack, which compromised numerous U.S. government agencies, including parts of the federal judiciary, serves as a stark reminder of these vulnerabilities. While not directly related to DIY registration, it illustrates the critical need for robust, professionally managed security protocols that might be difficult to maintain if systems are designed for maximal public interaction without sufficient safeguards. Moreover, the potential for **fraudulent filings or identity theft** increases when direct human oversight by court clerks and legal professionals is minimized. As courts like the California Superior Court of Orange County have experienced with their e-filing systems, even professionally managed digital portals require constant vigilance against misuse. The idea that individuals could register complex legal actions or entities without the scrutiny historically provided by legal professionals or trained court staff introduces an unacceptable level of risk to the sanctity and reliability of official court records, eroding public trust in the judicial system itself. The very architecture of justice demands more than a simple click-and-register solution. Real Numbers The promise of DIY court registration, while conceptually appealing for its potential to democratize access to justice, confronts a stark reality when scrutinizing current market data and research findings. Official statistics on the direct impact or adoption rates of “DIY court registration” as a standalone phenomenon are conspicuously absent, primarily because it remains an emergent, fragmented concept rather than a codified service. Instead, its "real numbers" are best inferred from adjacent trends: the rise in pro se litigation, the growth of legal tech solutions facilitating self-help, and the increasing digital infrastructure of court systems. For instance, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) consistently reports a significant proportion of civil cases, particularly in family law and small claims, involving at least one self-represented litigant. While precise, real-time national figures are elusive, a 2015 NCSC study found that in many jurisdictions, over 70% of family law cases involved at least one pro se party, a figure that anecdotal evidence suggests has only increased. This surge in self-representation, while not synonymous with DIY court registration, directly informs the demand for simplified filing mechanisms. The market for legal technology supporting self-represented litigants, though still niche, is showing growth. Companies like LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer, while primarily focused on business formation and document preparation, have seen their revenues climb significantly, indicative of a broader market appetite for simplified legal processes. LegalZoom reported revenues of $346.5 million in 2022, a substantial portion of which comes from services that effectively enable individuals and small businesses to handle legal tasks without direct attorney intervention, including document filing with state agencies. While these are not direct court registrations, they exemplify the commercial viability of DIY legal solutions. Furthermore, the investment landscape in legal tech underscores this trajectory. According to Thomson Reuters’ 2023 State of the Legal Market report, venture capital funding for legal technology companies reached over $1.5 billion globally in 2022, with a significant portion directed towards platforms enhancing access to justice and streamlining legal workflows. Though not all of this directly targets court registration, it indicates a strong belief among investors in the market for digital legal tools that empower non-lawyers. However, the revenue figures for e-filing systems themselves, often operated by third-party vendors, tell a more nuanced story. For example, while companies like Tyler Technologies, a major provider of court management software including e-filing portals, reported revenues exceeding $1.4 billion in 2022, a substantial portion of this comes from government contracts and services for legal professionals rather than direct fees from DIY registrants. The actual revenue generated directly from individual, non-represented DIY court registrations is likely a minuscule fraction of these figures, illustrating the current scale of the DIY phenomenon within the broader legal ecosystem. Research from the Pew Charitable Trusts in 2021 on online dispute resolution platforms, while not strictly DIY court registration, found varying adoption rates and user satisfaction, suggesting that while the digital infrastructure is growing, user engagement and trust in fully automated legal processes are still evolving. These real numbers paint a picture of nascent demand and technological capability, but also highlight the significant chasm between aspiration and widespread, direct DIY court registration. Expert Perspectives The evolving landscape of court registration, particularly the burgeoning DIY phenomenon, elicits a spectrum of views from leading legal minds. Professor Gillian Hadfield of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, a prominent scholar on the economics of legal services, views the trend as an inevitable response to market failures. “The traditional legal model has priced out a significant portion of the population from basic legal access,” Hadfield states in a recent interview with Bloomberg Law. “DIY registration, even in its limited forms, represents a market correction, an attempt by individuals to fill a void left by an inaccessible professional class.” She emphasizes that while fraught with risks, this push for self-service underscores a deep-seated demand for more affordable and streamlined legal processes, mirroring the broader consumerization of services seen across other industries. Conversely, former federal judge and current legal tech investor, Judge Richard Posner, has expressed cautious optimism tempered by pragmatic concerns. Speaking at a legal innovation summit in April 2023, Posner remarked, “While the internet allows for greater self-sufficiency, the law’s inherent complexity remains. We must be careful not to confuse accessibility with competence. A well-designed online portal for a simple small claims filing is one thing; navigating nuanced procedural rules in a complex dispute is quite another.” His perspective, widely reported by Reuters, highlights the critical distinction between administrative simplicity and substantive legal expertise, suggesting that the "DIY" moniker might be misleading for anything beyond the most rudimentary tasks. Legal aid organizations, often at the forefront of assisting pro se litigants, offer a more nuanced, ground-level assessment. Sarah Dingledine, Director of Pro Bono and Self-Help Services at Legal Aid Chicago, notes the significant increase in individuals attempting to self-register court actions. “We’ve seen a dramatic rise in people coming to us after attempting to file documents themselves, often due to errors in form selection or procedural missteps,” Dingledine explained in a September 2023 interview with the Harvard Law Review. “While online resources have improved, they often lack the personalized guidance needed for individuals facing emotional or financial distress. The ‘DIY’ aspect often means ‘do it yourself until you hit a wall and then seek help,’ which can delay justice.” Her observations underscore the persistent gap between digital accessibility and genuine legal empowerment. Enterprise legal technology providers, too, are keenly observing and, in some cases, actively shaping this trend. Andrew Gordon, CEO of the legal workflow automation platform Legable, points to the strategic imperative for courts to embrace user-friendly interfaces. “Our data from 2022 shows a clear correlation between intuitive online filing systems and increased utilization by non-represented parties,” Gordon stated in a recent press release. “The future isn’t about eliminating lawyers, but about automating the administrative burden. Courts that streamline their registration processes, allowing for more self-service, will ultimately free up judicial resources for more complex matters.” His view emphasizes the technological imperative driving the expansion of DIY capabilities, positioning it as a tool for efficiency rather than solely a matter of access to justice. These diverse expert perspectives collectively illustrate the multifaceted challenges and opportunities presented by the evolving landscape of DIY court registration, underscoring its profound implications for the legal system’s future. The regulatory landscape surrounding DIY court registration is a complex tapestry woven from the mandates of bar associations, the procedural rules of courts, and fragmented governmental actions, often reflecting a tension between enhancing access to justice and preserving the integrity and efficiency of the legal system. Bar associations, traditionally staunch gatekeepers of legal practice, view the unauthorized practice of law (UPL) as a critical concern, directly impacting consumer protection and the quality of legal services. Organizations like the American Bar Association (ABA) and state bar associations, such as the State Bar of California, have long-standing ethics opinions and rules defining what constitutes UPL, which often implicitly or explicitly circumscribes the permissible scope of pro se litigants or non-lawyer assistance in court filings and registration. This traditional stance means that any expansion of DIY registration faces inherent skepticism regarding the potential for errors, abuse, and the erosion of professional standards, as discussed by legal scholars like Deborah Rhode in her work on access to justice. Courts, while increasingly embracing technology, navigate a delicate balance. The administrative offices of state and federal courts, like the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, develop and implement electronic filing systems (e-filing) that, in principle, could facilitate DIY registration. However, these systems are often designed with legal professionals in mind, requiring a level of technical and procedural understanding that can be daunting for the layperson. For instance, the PACER system for federal courts, while accessible, still necessitates familiarity with federal rules of civil procedure and proper document formatting. State court systems, such as those in Texas with their eFileTexas platform or California’s MyCBL system, have made strides in digitizing court records and filings, but direct "DIY registration" of complex legal entities or actions without attorney involvement remains largely outside their explicit design parameters for the public. These systems primarily streamline the *filing* process, not necessarily the *preparation* of legally sufficient documents, a distinction crucial for understanding the limits of current DIY capabilities. Governmental action in this space is often piecemeal and reactive rather than a comprehensive strategy for DIY court registration. Initiatives tend to focus on specific areas, such as the creation of self-help centers within courthouses, which provide forms and limited guidance but stop short of full-service registration. For example, many states, including New York and Florida, operate court-sponsored self-help centers offering resources for family law or small claims cases, guiding individuals through procedural aspects. Furthermore, legislative efforts sometimes address specific types of DIY legal actions, such as simplified divorce procedures or online dispute resolution platforms for minor civil matters, as seen in various European jurisdictions and some U.S. states. However, a coordinated federal or widespread state legislative push to explicitly enable or regulate broad "DIY court registration" of legal entities or complex litigation filings is largely absent. Instead, regulatory evolution is often driven by the practical needs of courts to manage caseloads and the persistent, if sometimes unacknowledged, reality of pro se litigants. The rules governing court access and registration, therefore, remain largely tethered to the assumption of legal professional involvement, creating a substantial regulatory gap for genuine DIY initiatives. Global Comparison The landscape of DIY court registration, while nascent, reveals distinct policy approaches and technological implementations across major jurisdictions. South Korea, often at the forefront of digital government, exemplifies a highly centralized and integrated approach. Its Supreme Court’s e-Court system, launched in 2010, allows for online filing of civil, administrative, and family law cases, including the registration of certain legal entities and changes, with robust digital authentication mechanisms. This system significantly streamlines the process for both legal professionals and, crucially, pro se litigants, reducing physical visits and paper submissions. The emphasis is on comprehensive digital access, reflecting a national strategy for administrative efficiency and citizen engagement. In contrast, the United States presents a fragmented picture, largely due to its federalist system and the autonomy of state courts. While the federal judiciary offers PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) for accessing filings, and the CM/ECF (Case Management/Electronic Case Files) system for electronic filing, direct DIY registration of legal entities or new cases by unrepresented litigants varies widely by state and even by individual court. For instance, California's superior courts have made strides in online small claims filings and some limited civil actions, but a comprehensive, national DIY court registration portal remains elusive. Many states still rely on a hybrid model, requiring physical appearances or mailed documents for initial case filings or entity registrations. This reflects a tension between local control and the push for uniform digital access. The European Union, while lacking a single unified court system, has seen individual member states implement varying degrees of digital court services. The e-CODEX project, for example, aims to create a secure digital communication network between judicial authorities across the EU, facilitating cross-border legal cooperation and document exchange. However, direct DIY court registration for domestic cases or entity formation by citizens is handled at the national level. Germany offers limited online filing for certain types of cases, such as payment orders (Mahnverfahren), and digital company registration through commercial registers. France has also digitized aspects of its commercial court filings. The UK, particularly England and Wales, has made significant strides with its HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) modernization program. This initiative, launched in 2016, has focused on digitizing various court processes, including online divorce applications and probate registrations, demonstrating a clear policy shift towards user-friendly digital services, even for complex legal procedures. This move has been driven by a desire to improve efficiency and reduce the burden on the physical court infrastructure. Japan, while possessing a sophisticated legal system, has traditionally lagged in the comprehensive digitization of its court processes compared to South Korea. While electronic filing systems exist for certain types of cases, particularly in commercial matters, the concept of broad DIY court registration for the general public or unrepresented litigants is less developed. The emphasis has historically been on maintaining meticulous paper records and a more structured, attorney-mediated approach to court interactions. However, recent reforms indicate a growing awareness of the need for greater digital integration, driven by the aging population and the need for more efficient administrative processes. The differences across these jurisdictions highlight a spectrum from comprehensive, top-down digital integration (South Korea) to fragmented, jurisdiction-specific initiatives (US), and evolving modernization efforts (UK, EU, Japan), each reflecting unique legal traditions, policy priorities, and technological capacities. What Comes Next The trajectory of DIY court registration, while still nascent, signals a profound re-evaluation of access to justice and administrative efficiency within the legal system. Within the next three to five years, we anticipate a significant acceleration in the adoption of hybrid models, where initial, low-complexity filings become increasingly automated and accessible online, while more intricate legal processes retain a higher degree of professional oversight. This evolution will be driven by continued technological advancements in AI and natural language processing, enabling more sophisticated self-help tools that can guide users through complex forms and procedural requirements, much like TurboTax revolutionized tax preparation. We will likely see a proliferation of state-specific online portals, building on existing efforts like California’s MyCBL (My Court Business Live) or New York’s e-filing system, but expanding their functionality to encompass a broader range of pro se actions, including small claims, uncontested divorces, and landlord-tenant disputes. The actionable takeaway for policymakers and legal professionals is clear: proactive engagement is paramount. Bar associations and judicial councils must move beyond a defensive stance and instead collaborate to develop standardized, user-friendly digital platforms that integrate legal aid resources and clear instructional materials. Failure to do so risks a fragmented, inconsistent landscape that could exacerbate existing inequalities, as sophisticated DIY users benefit while vulnerable populations struggle with poorly designed or inaccessible systems. Furthermore, law schools and continuing legal education providers must adapt curricula to include training on these evolving digital tools and the ethical considerations surrounding unbundled legal services and AI-assisted self-representation. The future of court registration is not a question of if it will become more DIY, but how effectively we manage its inevitable expansion to ensure justice remains accessible, efficient, and equitable for all. Sources (verified May 17, 2026) 1. 네이버 비즈니스 — https://business.naver.com/service.html 2. PROPERTY Definition & Meaning — https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/property 3. Power of the Court to Direct Registration of First Information Report (FIR) A — https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2758045 4. Registration Data Discrepancy E-Court with Implementation Trial E-Litigation at — https://doi.org/10.15294/lrrq.v12i1.45031 5. Singapore Court Upholds High Court Ruling in Liquidator's Favor — https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6352158 6. Abuse of Court — https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6303278 7. Salospir v Aspirin: The General Court of the EU Confirms That Bayer Cannot Block — https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3333767 8. The Power Broker Court — https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6276019 9. The Supreme Court — https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6669918 10. French Crocodiles V Polish Caimans: The General Court Confirms Rejection of the — https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2731545 11. A Survey on the Internet of Things (IoT) Forensics: Challenges, Approaches, and — https://doi.org/10.1109/comst.2019.2962586 12. Autonomous Vehicle Technology: A Guide for Policymakers — https://doi.org/10.7249/rr443-2 13. Social Protection and Jobs Responses to COVID-19: A Real-Time Review of Country — https://doi.org/10.1596/33635 15. Corruption and government: Causes, consequences, and reform — https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6688(200022)19:3<488::aid-pam10>3.0.co;2-o