Introduction. In the context of digitalization, unlimited technological opportunities have led to the reconstruction of the entire state and legal system and the creation of a new model, known as the “digital state.” Digital technologies are being actively integrated into organizational and management processes at all levels of government, including the judicial system. A notable trend in the development of modern justice is the optimization of procedural forms, which is evident at both the legislative and law enforcement levels. Statement of the problem. There are contradictory trends in the development of procedural form under the influence of digitalization. On the one hand, information and technical guarantees of access to justice are increasing and expanding, which is undoubtedly a positive result. However, on the other hand, there is an optimization and sometimes even the death of certain rituals (ceremonies) of justice. This can lead not only to the de-ritualization of justice, but also to its profound transformation, where justice will be reduced to the administration of electronic services for resolving disputes between parties. Theoretical analysis. The analysis of the role of rituals and ceremonies of justice in various historical eras has shown that they were carefully guarded by the corporate judicial tradition, as they were an essential guarantee of the court’s authority, aimed at maintaining its dominant role in the process, and contributed to the formation of public consciousness about the fairness of what was happening in the process. The article substantiates the need to preserve rituals and ceremonies in modern justice and the inadmissibility of a utilitarian approach to them. Empirical analysis. The legislation at the stages of digital transformation of legal proceedings has been analyzed. The active introduction of digital technologies into all types of legal proceedings has been highlighted. It has been revealed that one of the reasons for optimizing the ritual (ceremonial) form of justice in practice is the lack of proper regulatory detail regarding the use of digital technologies in various types of processes, particularly in civil and arbitration proceedings. It is justified to say that justice, performing the guaranteeing and ensuring functions for maintaining, strengthening and restoring the violated law and order in society, cannot be equated with public service and should not be a client-oriented activity, since justice is carried out not in the interests of a private person, but in the interests of society and the state for maintaining law and order and security. This means that both the process of administering justice and its outcome, the final judicial decision, must be legitimate, and this is ensured by the external ritual (ceremonial) form of justice. Results. The article concludes that the use of digital technologies in Russian justice is auxiliary and instrumental in nature and is not aimed at diminishing the role of the court in the process or replacing its functions. Therefore, the use of digital technologies in the process does not abolish the rituals and ceremonies of justice as external conditions that ensure the legitimacy of state power. However, the legislation does not specify the judge’s authority to manage, use, and control the application of digital technologies, which creates real risks of reducing the authority of the judiciary and the decline of the ritual (ceremonial) form.