Direito em Movimento - Volume 18 - Número 3 - Edição Especial

184 Direito em Movimento, Rio de Janeiro, v. 18 - n. 3, p. 176-198, 2020 - Ed. Especial ARTIGOS cess to high quality and up-to-date legal information.Early mobile services in the UK were often combined with library and information services, and key legal do- cuments were frequently physically transported to rural and remote locations. Today this is no longer necessary and while technology has improved, par- ticularly for the urban middle classes, serious problems of access to the internet remain for the ‘have-nots’ and those residing in remote areas. But with online courts and legal services becoming ever more sophisticated and a reality, and the ‘digital divide’ separating the technological ‘haves’ from the technological ‘have- nots’ shrinking (though many poor still have no mobile phone), technophiles may ask whether itinerant legal services, which maintain face-to-face human contact, is really worth the expense and effort.Could resources, both intellectual and material, currently invested in IJ be better deployed elsewhere (most ob- viously in technology)? Should we not shift our attention from geographical to technological barriers to justice, perhaps by getting judges and lawyers to detach from working in offices that occupy a particular physical space - whether this be in an urban, rural or mobile setting - in order that they can function more flexi- bly,and perhaps one day exclusively fromhome,and in cyberspace? 16 If so,would this work for all categories of client, and for all categories of legal problems? To answer such questions, we need further research both to evaluate objectively achievements to date, but also to assist with future planning in order that the full potential of IJ can be realised. Let me now turn to evaluating the contribution of IJ within the broader legal system. How should success be measured? 3. EVALUATING THE CONTRIBUTION OF ITINERANT JUSTICE Policymakers, and especially funders, typically measure the success of procedural reform with reference to quantifiable metrics, such as the im- pact on reducing caseload, costs and delay. These variables may be visible but not always easy to measure accurately (ECONOMIDES, HAUG & MCINTYRE, 2015). But we should remember too the value of dispute prevention and those cases that avoid going to court because of accurate 16 See the REMOTE COURTS WORLDWIDE (n.d.) project which reports a number of initiatives in Brazil and elsewhere.