Resposted from www.justicecompassadvisers.com/blog/
Andrew Solomon
Trust Is Declining
Public trust in justice institutions and actors, including courts, is under pressure around the world. In far too many countries, it is declining. At the same time, expectations for transparency are rising. People want to know how courts function, how decisions are made, and whether justice systems work for them in their everyday lives.This tension is not new. But it is becoming more visible and consequential for the rule of law and good governance.
The Open Justice Imperative
As the global community marks the 15th anniversary of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) during Open Government Week in May 2026, the need for greater transparency and collaboration between governments, civil society, and the public to improve service delivery—including justice services—cannot be overstated.
Fortunately, despite capacity and funding constraints, many countries are enacting judicial reforms that strengthen transparency and public engagement as a means to close trust gaps as well as to improve performance. More judiciaries are publishing decisions online, digitizing court information, sharing performance data, livestreaming hearings, and using social media to provide clear, usable, and actionable information and data. They are also strengthening judicial complaint and disciplinary systems and adopting ethics and asset disclosure frameworks. These and similar “open justice” initiatives are valuable, especially when advanced through OGP commitments. They also align with international standards such as the Istanbul Declaration on Transparency in the Judicial Process, the OECD Recommendation on Access to Justice and People-Centered Justice, and The Hague Declaration on Equal Access to Justice for All.
From Disclosure to Dialogue
But they address only one side of the equation: what courts are willing to disclose. The imperative now is to move beyond public disclosure to public dialogue. Courts that engage the public, invite feedback, and collaborate to co-design services that improve user experience and outcomes are not only delivering justice more effectively. They are reinforcing legitimacy and building trust with those they serve.
What Open Looks Like In Practice
Several initiatives I have contributed to illustrate what this looks like in practice.
In the Dominican Republic, the judiciary’s open justice policy initiative, led by the Supreme Court with technical support from the Judicial Integrity Network in the Americas (RIJA), combines transparency with public engagement, co-creation, accessible communication, and accountability mechanisms. The focus is not only on what information is shared, but on how it is understood and made actionable by the public and justice seekers.
In Kosovo, the Kosovo Judicial Council and local courts supported court user groups and improvement teams that brought judges, court staff, lawyers, and the public together to assess bottlenecks and co-design solutions to service delivery challenges. By grounding reforms in public input and priorities, these mechanisms improved performance while strengthening engagement and trust.
In Kyrgyzstan, the Supreme Court supported inclusive dialogues—including a national forum on people-centered justice—to collaborate with the public in understanding local justice problems and adapting services. These efforts improved institutional performance, made justice more accessible, and enhanced outcomes for justice seekers. In Serbia, the aptly named Open Doors to the Judiciary initiative led by Yucom brought courts and civil society together to address mistrust and misinformation through court-community dialogues and people-centered justice councils that co-created reform priorities and joint action plans. These platforms were reinforced with journey mapping, legal needs surveys, and behavioral analysis, alongside digital tools and procedural justice techniques to improve service delivery.
Turning Transparency Into Trust
These examples show that judicial transparency and open justice are not only about data and documents. The good practices are clear and consistent. Transparency and openness must be paired with dialogue to understand and solve justice problems from the perspective of users and the public.
The practical takeaway for courts and their leaders is to invest in feedback loops and mechanisms that transform transparency into trust through meaningful dialogue as well as disclosure. These reforms do not require large budgets or advanced technology. But they do require leadership. Chief judges and administrators play a critical role in making courts more open—especially when doing so invites greater scrutiny or requires long-avoided changes. Partnerships with civil society, community leaders, and others to expand the expertise and capacity to innovate and more effectively respond to public needs also matter.
Trust in justice is not built through transparency in the form of disclosure alone. It is earned when paired with dialogue that makes justice more understandable, responsive, and centered around the needs of the people it is meant to serve.
Managing Risk, Supporting Success
Many justice leaders are making difficult decisions to open their institutions, disclose data and information, and engage in dialogue with the public. In doing so, they often take significant institutional and political risks. In some contexts, transparency can expose poor performance, operational weaknesses, corruption, or long-avoided problems. For court leaders and justice officials, acknowledging what is not working well can invite criticism, political pressure, reputational damage, and even threats to budgets, authority, and professional standing.
At Justice Compass Advisers, we work alongside justice leaders and institutions to design and implement practical open justice and people-centered justice strategies that strengthen transparency, improve public engagement, and build trust. This includes facilitating difficult conversations, managing institutional risk, strengthening communication and feedback systems, and helping courts translate openness into measurable improvements in performance, legitimacy, and user experience.