Relying on existing literature and discussion, this article explains legal design as ‘human-centred design in the context of law’. The article then distinguishes between the methodological understanding of this statement and the evaluative understanding of this statement. The former focuses on the input and practice of legal designand is the subject of most legal design discussions. The article makes the argument that the evaluative understanding is less discussed but is nonetheless important. This understanding relates to legal design’s outcomes, and the article argues that a shared understanding of the outcomes of legal design benefits it in practice. The article then dissects the definitional statement of ‘human-centred design in the context of law’ as: (1) design as problem-solving; (2) human-centredness, assessed through function, usability and perception; and (3) application within the context of law. Drawing from various relevant theories and models, the evaluative framework offers a structured way to assess whether a legal outcome is meaningfully ‘human-centred design’ in law, even when full design methodologies are not used. The article explains how this evaluative approach can accommodate flexibility in methodologies, support clearer disciplinary boundaries, enable reflective practice and promote legal innovation in a way that remains grounded in legal legitimacy. It concludes by acknowledging the framework’s limitations, noting that the proposal may help shape and define legal design as a concept, and proposing an empirical next step on structuring legal design outcomes.
Glen Byrne (Thu,) studied this question.