Natalie Byrom explains how the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA 2007) aimed to reform legal services in England and Wales to enhance consumer protection and access to justice. However, its focus on professional titles and reserved activities created complexity and hindered innovation, especially for low-income individuals. Public funding cuts in 2013 worsened the situation, leading to increased self-representation and strain on the judiciary. In response, the Ministry of Justice and Senior Judiciary launched a £1.3bn digital reform in 2014 to modernize court operations. However, by 2023, only twenty-four out of forty-four projects were completed, with key initiatives like the Online Solutions Court abandoned due to delays and COVID-19 disruptions. In November 2023, a new vision proposed a public–private partnership for digital justice, leveraging technology to streamline processes and support from private sector services. This raises questions about market readiness, incentives for data sharing, and necessary regulatory adjustments to ensure fair access to justice. Addressing these challenges is crucial for improving legal service delivery and access to justice.

Governors are motivated to change public policy in response to issues and have powers that influence the shape and direction of budgets; however, interest groups are ultimately providing opportunities for action. We conclude with some broad recommendations for institutional and political tinkering in the American states. Specifically, we argue that policymakers can embrace the inevitability of interest group involvement in policymaking and be more thoughtful about the way they structure policies. This process enables diversity – by which we mean more groups with difference and alternative policy concerns – in representation. In addition, we argue that decentralization of gubernatorial power over the budget to alternative institutions could facilitate budgets that are more responsive to problems.