 |  |
, |
Ch 5. Seeking help for legal events
This chapter focuses on the 1496 legal events for which participants sought help, advice or information, and describes the types of advisers used by participants, the types of assistance received and the barriers to accessing assistance.1
Type of adviser
Participants who sought help, advice or information in response to legal events were asked to identify all the advisers they had used in relation to each event. Participants sometimes used more than one adviser in response to a legal event. Figure 5.1 presents a frequency distribution showing the number of advisers that participants reported using in response to the 1496 events where they sought some form of help. For 1167 or over three-quarters (78.4%) of the legal events where help was sought, participants reported using only one adviser.2 Two advisers were used in response to a further 14.8 per cent of the events, and three or more advisers were used in the remaining 6.9 per cent of events. Approaching five or more advisers was quite rare, occurring in response to only 0.5 per cent of all events where participants sought help. When some form of help was sought in response to a legal event, the average number of advisers used was 1.3.
Figure 5.1: Number of advisers used per legal event, all six LGAs, 2003
Notes: N=1488 events. Information on number of advisers was missing for eight events where help was sought.
Participants were asked to identify all the advisers they used in response to legal events from a list comprising a wide range of both legal and non-legal advisers. Legal advisers included traditional legal advisers, such as private solicitors/barristers, local courts, Legal Aid NSW, LawAccess NSW, Aboriginal legal services, community legal centres (CLCs), as well as less formal legal advisers such as friends or relatives who are lawyers, and published sources (e.g. the internet). Non-legal advisers included friends and relatives who are not lawyers, government sources, police, complaint handling bodies, and other professionals and agencies.3
Figure 5.2 presents the percentage of events where participants who sought help used one or more legal advisers. It can be seen that participants did not limit themselves to legal advisers, but approached a broad range of sources in response to legal events. In fact, one or more legal advisers were used in response to only 25.6 per cent of the events where participants sought help. In the remaining three-quarters of the events where help was sought, participants used only non-legal advisers.
Figure 5.2: Use of legal versus non-legal advisers, all six LGAs, 2003
Notes: N=1495 events. Information on type of adviser was missing for one event where help was sought.
Events where both legal and non-legal advisers were used are included within the ‘legal adviser(s) used’ category.
Table 5.1 presents more detailed information about the types of legal and non-legal advisers used by participants. It presents both the percentage of events where a given adviser was used, and the percentage of events where a given adviser was the first adviser used.4 The table also provides the rankings corresponding to these percentages.
As shown in Table 5.1, traditional legal advisers, namely private lawyers, local courts, Legal Aid NSW, LawAccess NSW, Aboriginal legal services and CLCs, were used in response to only 12.0 per cent of events where help was sought. Private solicitors/barristers constituted the most commonly used traditional legal adviser, approached in 9.6 per cent of events where participants sought help. Local courts, Legal Aid NSW, LawAccess NSW, Aboriginal legal services and CLCs were each used in under 2.0 per cent of events where help was sought.
Interestingly, the most commonly approached advisers in response to legal events were non-legal professionals, such as doctors, accountants, psychologists and counsellors. Non-legal professionals (i.e. ‘other professionals’) were approached for help in response to 24.5 per cent of the events where help was sought. The next nine most common advisers were friends or relatives who are not lawyers (15.5%), government organisations (15.3%), private solicitors/barristers (9.6%), the internet (7.4%), friends or relatives who are lawyers (7.0%), trade unions or professional bodies (6.4%), insurance companies/brokers (5.9%), school staff (5.7%) and the police (5.2%). There were only three categories of legal advisers among the 10 most frequently used types of advisers: private lawyers, the internet, and friends or relatives who are lawyers.
Table 5.1: Type of adviser used, all six LGAs, 2003
| Type of adviser |
Adviser used
|
Adviser used firste
|
||||
 |
No. of events
|
% of events where help sought
|
Rank
|
No. of events
|
% of events where help sought
|
Rank
|
| LEGAL ADVISER | ||||||
| Traditional legal: |
180
|
12
| |
150
|
10.3
| |
| Private solicitor/barrister |
143
|
9.6
|
4
|
119
|
8.2
|
4
|
| Local court |
21
|
1.4
|
16
|
13
|
0.9
|
16
|
| Legal Aid NSW |
18
|
1.2
|
18
|
13
|
0.9
|
16
|
| LawAccess NSW |
3
|
0.2
|
24
|
2
|
0.1
|
21
|
| Aboriginal legal services |
1
|
0.1
|
25
|
1
|
0.1
|
25
|
| CLCs |
5
|
0.3
|
21
|
2
|
0.1
|
21
|
| Lawyer friend/relative |
105
|
7
|
6
|
77
|
5.3
|
5
|
| Published: |
120
|
8
| |
67
|
4.6
| |
| Internet |
110
|
7.4
|
5
|
59
|
4.1
|
10
|
| Self-help source |
13
|
0.9
|
19
|
8
|
0.5
|
19
|
| NON-LEGAL ADVISER | ||||||
| Other friend/relative |
232
|
15.5
|
2
|
168
|
11.5
|
3
|
| Government: |
294
|
19.7
| |
233
|
16
| |
| Government organisation |
228
|
15.3
|
3
|
172
|
11.8
|
2
|
| Local council |
68
|
4.5
|
12
|
51
|
3.5
|
12
|
| Member of parliament |
21
|
1.4
|
16
|
10
|
0.7
|
18
|
| Police/complaint handling: |
82
|
5.5
| |
68
|
4.7
| |
| Police |
77
|
5.2
|
10
|
65
|
4.5
|
9
|
| Industry complaint handling bodya |
5
|
0.3
|
21
|
3
|
0.2
|
20
|
| Other: |
829
|
55.5
| |
692
|
47.6
| |
| Other professionalb |
367
|
24.5
|
1
|
293
|
20.1
|
1
|
| School/school counsellor/teacher |
85
|
5.7
|
9
|
73
|
5
|
6
|
| Non-legal community group |
56
|
3.7
|
15
|
29
|
2
|
15
|
| Private agency/organisationc |
70
|
4.7
|
11
|
51
|
3.5
|
12
|
| Company/business/bank |
61
|
4.1
|
14
|
46
|
3.2
|
14
|
| Insurance company/broker |
88
|
5.9
|
8
|
71
|
4.9
|
8
|
| Trade union/professional body |
96
|
6.4
|
7
|
72
|
4.9
|
7
|
| Library |
7
|
0.5
|
20
|
2
|
0.1
|
21
|
| Employer |
63
|
4.2
|
13
|
53
|
3.6
|
11
|
| Other tribunal |
5
|
0.3
|
21
|
2
|
0.1
|
21
|
| Unclassified |
3
|
0.2
| |
-
|
-
|
-
|
| Total |
1495d
|
100
| |
1455f
|
100
| |
b Includes doctor, accountant, psychologist, counsellor, etc.
c Includes debt collection agency, employment agency, real estate agent.
d Information on adviser was missing for one event where help was sought.
e For 78.4% of events, the first adviser used was the only adviser used.
f Information on the first adviser used was missing for 41 events where help was sought.
Notes: Multiple advisers were sometimes used for the same event. Advisers were classified as legal advisers only if one of their primary roles is to provide legal information, advice, assistance or representation. Individuals and organisations who sometimes provide legal information or advice as a subsidiary activity are classified as non-legal advisers.
Sub-totals show the number of events where at least one of that type of adviser was used. E.g. One or more traditional legal advisers were used in 180 events.
As shown by the ranks in Table 5.1, the 10 types of advisers used most frequently were also the 10 types of advisers that were most often approached first for help. The advisers that were most likely to be consulted first were non-legal professionals (in 20.1% of events where help was sought), government organisations (11.8%), and friends or relatives who are not lawyers (11.5%).
Participants who sought help in response to legal events were also asked whether or not each adviser was ‘useful’. There was considerable variation in the perceived usefulness of different types of advisers (see Table 5.2). The advisers that were most often rated as useful were friends or relatives who are lawyers (90.5%), the internet (89.1%), other friends or relatives (82.8%), non-legal community groups (76.8%) and other non-legal professionals (76.6%). Traditional legal advisers such as private lawyers (65.7%), local courts (76.2%) and Legal Aid NSW (66.7%) were also rated as useful in the majority of cases.5 Advisers who were least frequently perceived as useful were members of parliament (33.3%).
There was also considerable variation in how often each type of adviser was rated as the ‘most useful’ adviser when more than one adviser was used for the same event (see Table 5.2). The advisers that were most often rated as the most useful adviser when they were one of multiple advisers were private lawyers (72.7%).
However, as will be discussed later, different types of advisers tended to be consulted for different types of events. Thus, differences in the perceived usefulness of different advisers may in part reflect differences in the nature of problems handled.
Table 5.2: Usefulness of advisers, all six LGAs, 2003
| Type of adviser | Adviser used | Adviser was one of multiple advisers | ||
| No. of events | % of events used where rated as usefuld | No. of events | % of events rated as most useful advisere |
| LEGAL ADVISER | ||||
| Traditional legal: |
180
|
67.8
|
41
|
73.1
|
| Private solicitor/barrister |
143
|
65.7
|
33
|
72.7
|
| Local court |
21
|
76.2
|
8
|
-
|
| Legal Aid NSW |
18
|
66.7
|
7
|
-
|
| LawAccess NSW |
3
|
-
|
1
|
-
|
| Aboriginal legal services |
1
|
-
|
0
|
-
|
| CLCs |
5
|
-
|
3
|
-
|
| Lawyer friend/relative |
105
|
90.5
|
44
|
50
|
| Published: |
120
|
87.5
|
86
|
33.7
|
| Internet |
110
|
89.1
|
81
|
34.6
|
| Self-help source |
13
|
53.8
|
8
|
-
|
| NON-LEGAL ADVISER | ||||
| Other friend/relative |
232
|
82.8
|
139
|
33.8
|
| Government: |
294
|
55.4
|
112
|
47.3
|
| Government organisation |
228
|
57
|
84
|
44
|
| Local council |
68
|
45.6
|
38
|
34.2
|
| Member of parliament |
21
|
33.3
|
13
|
23.1
|
| Police/complaint handling: |
82
|
51.2
|
31
|
29
|
| Police |
77
|
49.4
|
29
|
27.6
|
| Industry complaint handling bodya |
5
|
-
|
2
|
-
|
| Other: |
829
|
67.4
|
225
|
56
|
| Other professionalb |
367
|
76.6
|
110
|
53.6
|
| School/school counsellor/teacher |
85
|
55.3
|
24
|
20.8
|
| Non-legal community group |
56
|
76.8
|
28
|
46.4
|
| Private agency/organisationc |
70
|
71.4
|
23
|
30.4
|
| Company/business/bank |
61
|
47.5
|
21
|
38.1
|
| Insurance company/broker |
88
|
46.6
|
25
|
36
|
| Trade union/professional body |
96
|
57.3
|
33
|
54.5
|
| Library |
7
|
-
|
5
|
-
|
| Employer |
63
|
63.5
|
24
|
25
|
| Other tribunal |
5
|
-
|
1
|
-
|
| Unclassified |
3
|
-
|
0
|
-
|
| Total |
1495
| | | |
b Includes doctor, accountant, psychologist, counsellor, etc.
c Includes debt collection agency, employment agency, real estate agent.
d Of the events where this adviser was used, the percentage where the adviser was rated as useful. E.g. Private lawyers were rated as useful in 65.7% of events where they were consulted.
e For the events where an adviser was not the only adviser consulted, the percentage of times this adviser was rated the most useful of those consulted. E.g. In 33 events, a private lawyer was one of two or more advisers consulted. In 72.7% of these 33 events, the private lawyer was rated as the most useful of the advisers consulted.
Notes: Information on adviser was missing for one event where help was sought. Due to their unreliability, percentages are not provided for advisers used in response to fewer than 10 events. Multiple advisers were sometimes used for the same event.
Sub-totals show the number of events where at least one of that type of adviser was used or was one of multiple advisers used. Respondents sometimes used more than one of a particular type of adviser (e.g. more than one type of traditional legal adviser). E.g. One or more traditional legal advisers were rated as useful in 67.8% of the 180 events where they were consulted.
Table 5.3 shows how participants found out about the particular advisers they used in response to the legal events they experienced in the 12 months prior to the survey. Where participants approached more than one adviser in response to a legal event, they were only asked how they found out about the adviser they judged to be the most useful.6
Table 5.3: Source of knowledge about sole or most useful adviser, all six LGAs, 2003
| How found out about adviser |
Events where help sought
|
|
|
No.
|
%
|
| General knowledge |
436
|
30.2
|
| Used the adviser/service before |
256
|
17.7
|
| Adviser was a friend or relative |
241
|
16.7
|
| Other agency/person |
210
|
14.5
|
| From a friend or relative |
126
|
8.7
|
| Telephone book |
44
|
3
|
| Pamphlet/poster |
33
|
2.3
|
| Internet |
30
|
2.1
|
| Media |
26
|
1.8
|
| Walked in off the street |
16
|
1.1
|
| CLC |
14
|
1
|
| Adviser approached them |
6
|
0.4
|
| Other |
8
|
0.6
|
| Total |
1446
|
100
|
Participants found out about their sole or most useful adviser from a variety of sources. In almost one-third of cases, participants relied on their own general knowledge, in 17.7 per cent of cases the participant had used the adviser before and in a further 16.7 per cent of cases the adviser was a friend or relative. Participants also found out about the sole or most useful adviser from friends or relatives (8.7%), or from another person or agency (14.5%). Less often, participants found out about the adviser from the telephone book, pamphlets/posters, the internet, the media or CLCs. Participants reported that they found out about the adviser from a CLC in only 1.0 per cent of cases.
Type of adviser for different types of legal events
Table 5.4 shows the types of advisers used for different types of legal events. The table presents this information for the 10 types of adviser used most frequently overall. In some cases, participants used more than one adviser for the same event. The descriptive statistics suggest that the type of legal event experienced to some extent guided participants’ choice of adviser, with the choice of adviser generally appearing to be appropriate.7 For instance, in response to education events, the advisers most commonly approached for help were school staff such as teachers or school counsellors. School staff were used in response to 82.9 per cent of education events where some form of help was sought. Non-legal professionals such as doctors, psychologists and counsellors were the advisers most commonly approached in response to health events (54.5%) and in response to accident/injury events (53.6%). The most common advisers were government organisations for government events (41.3%), trade unions for employment events (40.5%), private lawyers for wills/estates events (33.5%) and police for general crime events (27.1%).
Type of assistance
Participants were asked in a closed-ended question whether they obtained written information from any of the advisers they used in relation to a given legal event. Written information was obtained in response to 416 or 27.8 per cent of the 1496 legal events where participants sought help. Written information included information from books or leaflets (10.6% of events), websites (6.1%) and do-it-yourself kits (1.2%).
In addition, participants were also asked in an open-ended question to identify all the different types of help they received from their sole or most useful adviser.8 The type of help received was provided for only 1272 of the events where help was sought. Figure 5.3 presents a summary of whether the type of help was of a legal or non-legal nature. More than one type of help was sometimes received for the same event. For 8.5 per cent of these events, participants reported that their adviser did not actually provide any useful help. For 38.2 per cent of these events, respondents did not specify whether or not the help was of a legal or non-legal nature. However, for at least 323 (25.4%) of these events, the help received included information, advice or assistance that was of a legal nature.9 In the remaining 27.9 per cent of events, only non-legal information, advice or assistance was received.10 Thus, in a considerable proportion of cases where participants sought help for events that had legal consequences, they only received non-legal help. This finding is not surprising given the earlier reported finding that in the majority of cases where help was sought, only a non-legal adviser was consulted.
Figure 5.3: Legal versus non-legal help from sole or most useful adviser, all six LGAs, 2003
a Legal help includes two events where legal help was received together with non-legal help and 10 events where legal help was received together with an unspecified form of help.
b Non-legal help includes three events where non-legal help was received together with an unspecified form of help.
Notes: N=1272 events. Type of help was missing for 224 events where help was sought.
Table 5.4: Ten most frequently used advisers by legal event group, all six LGAs, 2003
| Legal Event Group |
% of events of each type where help sought
| No. of events | ||||||||||
|
LEGAL ADVISER
| |
NON-LEGAL ADVISER
|
||||||||||
|
Traditional legal:
|
Lawyer friend/ relative
|
Published:
|
Other friend/ relative
|
Government:
|
Police/complaint handling:
|
Other:
| | | |
|||
|
Private solicitor/barrister
| | Internet | |
Government organisation
|
Police
|
Other professionala
|
School/school counsellor/
teacher |
Insurance company/
broker |
Trade union/professional body
|
|||
| Civil | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Accident/injury |
2.9
|
2.5
|
3.3
|
7.9
|
3.8
|
9.2
|
53.6
|
0.4
|
24.7
|
2.9
|
239
|
|
| Business |
8.5
|
6.8
|
6.8
|
13.6
|
18.6
|
3.4
|
27.1
|
1.7
|
3.4
|
3.4
|
59
|
|
| Consumer |
8.1
|
8.7
|
9.3
|
19.9
|
9.9
|
0.6
|
14.9
|
0
|
13
|
1.9
|
161
|
|
| Credit/debt |
0
|
18.2
|
9.1
|
9.1
|
36.4
|
0
|
18.2
|
0
|
9.1
|
0
|
11
|
|
| Education |
1.3
|
1.3
|
5.3
|
10.5
|
6.6
|
2.6
|
11.8
|
82.9
|
0
|
0
|
76
|
|
| Employment |
6.5
|
6.5
|
12.5
|
14.9
|
11.9
|
0
|
10.1
|
3
|
0
|
40.5
|
168
|
|
| Government |
3.9
|
5.6
|
6.1
|
15.1
|
41.3
|
0.6
|
22.3
|
1.7
|
0.6
|
2.2
|
179
|
|
| Health |
0
|
4.5
|
9.1
|
15.9
|
15.9
|
0
|
54.5
|
0
|
0
|
6.8
|
44
|
|
| Housing |
5
|
8.4
|
10.1
|
23.5
|
15.1
|
9.2
|
7.6
|
0
|
0.8
|
3.4
|
119
|
|
| Human rights |
12.5
|
4.2
|
4.2
|
12.5
|
16.7
|
8.3
|
16.7
|
16.7
|
0
|
0
|
24
|
|
| Wills/estates |
33.5
|
15.4
|
7.1
|
14.8
|
4.9
|
0
|
25.3
|
0
|
1.1
|
0.5
|
182
|
|
| Criminal | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Domestic violence |
2.9
|
2.9
|
5.9
|
23.5
|
26.5
|
23.5
|
26.5
|
5.9
|
0
|
2.9
|
34
|
|
| General crime |
6.3
|
5.2
|
2.1
|
17.7
|
18.8
|
27.1
|
20.8
|
6.3
|
1
|
2.1
|
96
|
|
| Traffic offences |
33.3
|
0
|
0
|
16.7
|
0
|
0
|
33.3
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
6
|
|
| Family |
20.4
|
10.8
|
12.9
| |
21.5
|
24.7
|
2.2
|
17.2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
93
|
Notes: N=1491 events. Four unclassified events were excluded, and information on type of adviser was missing for one event where help was sought. Multiple advisers were sometimes used for the same event. A significance test was not conducted.
Table 5.5 details the types of legal and non-legal information, advice and assistance that participants reported receiving from their sole or most useful adviser. The most frequent type of legal help received from the sole or most useful adviser was specific legal advice, which was received in response to 20.0 per cent of events where help was sought.11 Other types of legal help included assistance with legal paperwork such as legal documents or letters (2.2%), general information about the law or legal rights (1.7%) and legal representation in court or tribunal proceedings (1.3%).12 The most frequent types of non-legal help included medical advice, assistance or referral (8.9%), financial or insurance advice or assistance (4.4%), and non-legal counselling or support (4.2%).13
Table 5.5: Type of help from sole or most useful adviser, all six LGAs, 2003
| Type of help |
Events where help sought
|
|
|
No.
|
%
|
| No help received |
108
|
8.5
|
| Legal | ||
| Specific legal advice |
254
|
20
|
| Information re legal services |
4
|
0.3
|
| General information re law/legal rights |
22
|
1.7
|
| Legal representation in court/tribunal |
16
|
1.3
|
| Legal paperwork |
28
|
2.2
|
| Other legala |
28
|
2.2
|
| Non-legal | ||
| Medical advice/assistance |
113
|
8.9
|
| Financial/insurance advice/assistance |
56
|
4.4
|
| Information re non-legal services |
7
|
0.6
|
| General non-legal information |
15
|
1.2
|
| Non-legal counselling/supportb |
54
|
4.2
|
| Non-legal paperwork |
3
|
0.2
|
| Other non-legalc |
112
|
8.8
|
| Legal versus non-legal not specified | | |
| Specific advice |
325
|
25.6
|
| Information re services |
2
|
0.2
|
| General informationd |
110
|
8.6
|
| Paperwork |
29
|
2.3
|
| Other |
85
|
6.7
|
b e.g. psychological counselling; moral support; housing/financial support.
c e.g. non-legal advice on other issues (e.g. council, employment, engineering, real estate); non-legal advocacy.
d e.g. information published via the internet, books, pamphlets.
Notes: N=1272 events. Information on type of help was missing for 224 events where help was sought. Multiple types of help were sometimes obtained from the sole or most useful adviser.
Table 5.6 breaks down the type of help received from the sole or most useful adviser according to the type of adviser used. Not surprisingly, the descriptive statistics suggest that the type of help received appeared to depend on the type of adviser consulted, with legal advisers tending to provide legal forms of help more often than non-legal advisers.14 Legal advisers provided some form of legal help in at least three-fifths of events, with traditional legal advisers (i.e. private lawyers, local courts, legal service agencies) providing legal help in over four-fifths of cases. In comparison, non-legal advisers (i.e. non-lawyer friends and family, government sources, police, complaint handling bodies and other advisers) may have provided legal information, advice or assistance in no more than 14.8 per cent of cases.15 Advice or assistance of a medical, financial or insurance nature tended to be provided more frequently by non-legal rather than legal advisers.16 One of the main uses of published sources was to obtain general information, either of a legal or non-legal nature.
Table 5.7 (a and b) breaks down the types of help received from the sole or most useful adviser by legal event group. Table 5.7a provides this breakdown for civil legal event groups while Table 5.7b provides the breakdown for criminal and family legal event groups. The descriptive data suggest that type of help appeared to depend on the type of legal event.17 For example, as would be expected, medical advice or assistance tended to be most commonly received for accident/injury (47.8%) and health events (31.4%) rather than other types of events. Specific legal advice was received in over one-third of family (34.2%) and wills/estates (52.3%) events, but in less than 10 per cent of accident/injury, education, government and health events. Non-legal counselling or support was received most commonly for domestic violence events (40.7%).
Table 5.6: Type of help from sole or most useful adviser by type of adviser, all six LGAs, 2003
| Type of help |
% of events where adviser used
|
||||||||
|
Traditional legale
|
Lawyer friend/ relative
|
Publishedf
|
LEGAL
ADVISERg |
Other friend/ relative
|
Governmenth
|
Police/ complaint handing
|
Otheri
|
NON-LEGAL
ADVISERj |
| No help received |
6.9
|
6.3
|
1.6
|
5.5
|
4.9
|
14.1
|
17.1
|
8.1
|
9.3
|
| Legal |
85.4
|
52.5
|
34.9
|
64.1
|
16.4
|
15
|
14.3
|
14.5
|
14.8
|
| Specific legal advice |
70.8
|
43.8
|
17.5
|
50.5
|
13.1
|
11.7
|
11.4
|
11.3
|
11.6
|
| Information re legal services |
0.8
|
1.3
|
1.6
|
1.1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0.2
|
0.1
|
| General information re law/legal rights |
2.3
|
3.8
|
17.5
|
6.2
|
1.6
|
0.5
|
0
|
0.3
|
0.5
|
| Legal representation in court/tribunal |
5.4
|
1.3
|
0
|
2.9
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1.3
|
0.8
|
| Legal paperwork |
6.9
|
6.3
|
0
|
5.1
|
0.8
|
0
|
0
|
2.1
|
1.4
|
| Other legala |
6.9
|
2.5
|
0
|
4
|
0.8
|
2.8
|
2.9
|
1.4
|
1.7
|
| Non-legal |
3.1
|
6.3
|
9.5
|
5.5
|
28.7
|
22.1
|
14.3
|
40.2
|
34
|
| Medical advice/assistance |
0
|
1.3
|
1.6
|
0.7
|
0
|
1.4
|
2.9
|
17
|
11.1
|
| Financial/insurance advice/assistance |
0.8
|
2.5
|
1.6
|
1.5
|
4.1
|
4.7
|
5.7
|
5.6
|
5.2
|
| Information re non-legal services |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1.4
|
0
|
0.6
|
0.7
|
| General non-legal information |
0
|
0
|
6.3
|
1.5
|
2.5
|
0.9
|
2.9
|
0.8
|
1.1
|
| Non-legal counselling/supportb |
0
|
1.3
|
1.6
|
0.7
|
10.7
|
2.8
|
0
|
5.2
|
5.2
|
| Non-legal paperwork |
0.8
|
0
|
0
|
0.4
|
0
|
0.5
|
0
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
| Other non-legalc |
1.5
|
1.3
|
0
|
1.1
|
11.5
|
10.3
|
2.9
|
11.4
|
10.9
|
| Legal versus non-legal not specified |
4.6
|
35
|
54
|
24.9
|
50
|
48.8
|
54.3
|
37.2
|
41.8
|
| Specific advice |
0
|
26.3
|
20.6
|
12.5
|
33.6
|
33.3
|
42.9
|
26.1
|
29.1
|
| Information re services |
0
|
0
|
1.6
|
0.4
|
0
|
0.5
|
0
|
0
|
0.1
|
| General informationd |
5.4
|
6.3
|
39.7
|
13.6
|
6.6
|
8.9
|
8.6
|
6.8
|
7.3
|
| Paperwork |
5.4
|
2.5
|
0
|
3.3
|
0.8
|
2.8
|
0
|
2.1
|
2
|
| Other |
0
|
3.8
|
3.2
|
1.8
|
10.7
|
8.5
|
5.7
|
7.5
|
8
|
| No. of events |
130
|
80
|
63
|
273
|
122
|
213
|
35
|
629
|
999
|
b e.g. psychological counselling; moral support; housing/financial support.
c e.g. non-legal advice on other issues (e.g. council, employment, engineering, real estate); non-legal advocacy.
d e.g. information published via the internet, books, pamphlets.
e Includes private solicitor/barrister, local court, Legal Aid NSW, LawAccess NSW, Aboriginal legal services and CLCs.
f Includes the internet and self-help source.
g Includes the categories of traditional legal adviser, lawyer friend/relative and published source.
h Includes government organisation, local council and member of parliament.
i Includes other professional, school/school counsellor/teacher, non-legal community group, private agency/organisation, company/business/bank, insurance company/broker, trade union/professional body, library, employer and other tribunal.
j Includes the categories of other (non-lawyer) friend/relative, government source, police/complaint handling body and other adviser.
Notes: N=1272. Type of help was missing for 224 events where help was sought. Multiple types of help were sometimes obtained from the sole or most useful adviser. A significance test was not conducted.
Table 5.7a: Type of help from sole or most useful adviser by each civil legal event group, all six LGAs, 2003
| Type of help |
% of events of each type where help sought
| |
|||||||
|
Accident/injury
|
Business
|
Consumer
|
Education
|
Employment
|
Government
|
Health
|
Housing
|
Wills/estates
|
| No help received |
5
|
5.7
|
16.7
|
10.6
|
6.8
|
12.4
|
5.7
|
7.3
|
2.6
|
| Legal |
8.3
|
39.6
|
22.9
|
4.5
|
20.9
|
10.6
|
5.7
|
25.5
|
62.9
|
| Specific legal advice |
6.7
|
28.3
|
19.4
|
4.5
|
17.6
|
8.7
|
0
|
18.2
|
52.3
|
| Information re legal services |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0.6
|
0
|
0.9
|
0
|
| General information re law/legal rights |
0.6
|
1.9
|
1.4
|
0
|
2
|
1.2
|
2.9
|
3.6
|
2.6
|
| Legal representation in court/tribunal |
1.1
|
1.9
|
0.7
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0.7
|
| Legal paperwork |
0
|
5.7
|
0.7
|
0
|
0
|
0.6
|
0
|
3.6
|
12.6
|
| Other legala |
0
|
7.5
|
2.8
|
0
|
1.4
|
0
|
2.9
|
3.6
|
3.3
|
| Non-legal |
62.2
|
13.2
|
23.6
|
40.9
|
22.3
|
27.3
|
45.7
|
23.6
|
4.6
|
| Medical advice/assistance |
47.8
|
0
|
0
|
1.5
|
2.7
|
2.5
|
31.4
|
0
|
0
|
| Financial/insurance advice/assistance |
6.1
|
7.5
|
11.8
|
0
|
3.4
|
8.1
|
0
|
0
|
1.3
|
| Information re non-legal services |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
0.6
|
0
|
0.9
|
0
|
| General non-legal information |
0
|
0
|
0.7
|
1.5
|
2.7
|
1.2
|
5.7
|
3.6
|
0
|
| Non-legal counselling/supportb |
0.6
|
0
|
0.7
|
12.1
|
3.4
|
1.2
|
5.7
|
4.5
|
1.3
|
| Non-legal paperwork |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0.7
|
1.2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
| Other non-legalc |
7.8
|
5.7
|
10.4
|
25.8
|
8.1
|
12.4
|
8.6
|
14.5
|
2
|
| Legal versus non-legal not specified |
24.4
|
41.5
|
36.8
|
43.9
|
50
|
49.7
|
42.9
|
43.6
|
29.8
|
| Specific advice |
17.2
|
32.1
|
26.4
|
30.3
|
32.4
|
32.9
|
28.6
|
29.1
|
17.2
|
| Information re services |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0.6
|
0
|
0.9
|
0
|
| General informationd |
3.9
|
15.1
|
7.6
|
4.5
|
12.8
|
12.4
|
11.4
|
10.9
|
7.9
|
| Paperwork |
1.1
|
5.7
|
3.5
|
0
|
0.7
|
3.1
|
0
|
1.8
|
5.3
|
| Other |
4.4
|
0
|
6.3
|
12.1
|
10.1
|
8.7
|
8.6
|
5.5
|
4
|
| No. of events |
180
|
53
|
144
|
66
|
148
|
161
|
35
|
110
|
151
|
b e.g. psychological counselling; moral support; housing/financial support.
c e.g. non-legal advice on other issues (e.g. council, employment, engineering, real estate); non-legal advocacy.
d e.g. information published via the internet, books, pamphlets.
Notes: N=1233 for Tables 5.7a and 5.7b. Type of help was missing for 224 events where help was sought. Four unclassified events were excluded. Credit/debt (n=11), human rights (n=18) and traffic offence (n=6) events were excluded because there were insufficient numbers for reliable results. Multiple types of help were sometimes obtained from the sole or most useful adviser. A significance test was not conducted.
Table 5.7b: Type of help from sole or most useful adviser by each criminal and family legal event group, all six LGAs, 2003
| Type of help |
% of events of each type where help sought
| |
|
|
Domestic violence
|
General crime
|
Family
|
| No help received |
0
|
12.7
|
8.9
|
| Legal |
14.8
|
32.9
|
44.3
|
| Specific legal advice |
14.8
|
21.5
|
34.2
|
| Information re legal services |
0
|
0
|
2.5
|
| General information re law/legal rights |
0
|
1.3
|
1.3
|
| Legal representation in court/tribunal |
0
|
5.1
|
5.1
|
| Legal paperwork |
0
|
0
|
0
|
| Other legala |
0
|
5.1
|
3.8
|
| Non-legal |
44.4
|
22.8
|
11.4
|
| Medical advice/assistance |
0
|
7.6
|
0
|
| Financial/insurance advice/assistance |
0
|
0
|
2.5
|
| Information re non-legal services |
3.7
|
0
|
1.3
|
| General non-legal information |
0
|
0
|
0
|
| Non-legal counselling/supportb |
40.7
|
11.4
|
6.3
|
| Non-legal paperwork |
0
|
0
|
0
|
| Other non-legalc |
0
|
5.1
|
1.3
|
| Legal versus non-legal not specified |
40.7
|
31.6
|
35.4
|
| Specific advice |
18.5
|
22.8
|
25.3
|
| Information re services |
0
|
0
|
0
|
| General informationd |
3.7
|
8.9
|
7.6
|
| Paperwork |
0
|
0
|
2.5
|
| Other |
22.2
|
5.1
|
3.8
|
| No. of events |
27
|
79
|
79
|
b e.g. psychological counselling; moral support; housing/financial support.
c e.g. non-legal advice on other issues (e.g. council, employment, engineering, real estate); non-legal advocacy.
d e.g. information published via the internet, books, pamphlets.
Notes: N=1233 for Tables 5.7a and 5.7b. Type of help was missing for 224 events where help was sought. Four unclassified events were excluded. Credit/debt (n=11), human rights (n=18) and traffic offence (n=6) events were excluded because there were insufficient numbers for reliable results. Multiple types of help were sometimes obtained from the sole or most useful adviser.
A significance test was not conducted.
Barriers to assistance
Participants who sought help were asked whether they had experienced any barriers in trying to obtain help from any adviser. As shown in Table 5.8, participants reported that they did not experience any barriers in attempting to obtain help in relation to approximately three-fifths of legal events.18 However, one or more barriers were reported for 38.2 per cent of the legal events where participants sought help. The three most commonly reported barriers to obtaining help were difficulty getting through on the telephone (experienced in 18.4% of events where help was sought), delay in getting a response (17.0%) and difficulty getting an appointment (11.0%). Other barriers to obtaining help were the lack of local services (8.1%), problems with opening hours (7.6%), difficulty affording the assistance (6.0%), and difficulty understanding the advice or information given (4.7%).
Table 5.8: Barriers to obtaining assistance from any adviser, all six LGAs, 2003
| Type of barrier |
Events where help sought
|
|
|
No.
|
%
|
| No problem |
770
|
61.8
|
| Telephone engaged/on hold too long |
229
|
18.4
|
| Delay in getting response |
212
|
17
|
| Difficulty getting an appointment |
137
|
11
|
| Lack of local services/couldn’t get there |
101
|
8.1
|
| Problem with opening hours |
95
|
7.6
|
| Difficulty affording it |
75
|
6
|
| Difficulty understanding advice/information |
58
|
4.7
|
| No ability to access the internet |
30
|
2.4
|
| Embarrassed to be seen using services |
22
|
1.8
|
| English language problems |
19
|
1.5
|
| Inadequate/incorrect information/advice |
17
|
1.4
|
| Adviser reluctant/refused to help |
13
|
1
|
| Adviser/service had limited power to help |
11
|
0.9
|
| Other |
19
|
1.5
|
Table 5.9 presents the barriers to obtaining assistance according to the type of adviser used. This table is based on the 929 events where only one adviser was used.19 No barriers were reported in approximately four-fifths or more of the events where participants sought help from friends or relatives, but in approximately two-thirds or less of the events where they sought help from other advisers. The barriers reported in obtaining assistance from a traditional legal adviser were not strikingly different from those reported in relation to other advisers. However, there was a tendency for slightly higher percentages of respondents using a traditional legal adviser to report difficulty affording the advice (10.1% for traditional legal advisers compared with 3.7–6.9% for other advisers) and a lack of locally available services (10.1% for traditional legal advisers compared with 1.7–8.1% for other advisers).
Table 5.9: Barriers to obtaining assistance from sole adviser by type of adviser, all six LGAs, 2003
| Type of barrier |
% of events where adviser used
|
||||||||
|
Traditional legala
|
Lawyer friend/relative
|
Publishedb
|
LEGAL ADVISERc
|
Other friend/ relative
|
Governmentd
|
Police/complaint handing
|
Othere
|
NON-LEGAL ADVISERf
|
| No problem |
69.7
|
87.9
|
69.7
|
75.3
|
79.2
|
60.6
|
50
|
69.4
|
67.8
|
| Telephone engaged/on hold too long |
12.1
|
5.2
|
18.2
|
11.1
|
8.3
|
24.4
|
26.9
|
11.9
|
14.7
|
| Delay in getting response |
10.1
|
3.4
|
6.1
|
7.4
|
11.1
|
19.4
|
23.1
|
12.9
|
14.5
|
| Difficulty getting an appointment |
9.1
|
3.4
|
3
|
6.3
|
4.2
|
12.5
|
7.7
|
7.7
|
8.4
|
| Lack of local services/couldn’t get there |
10.1
|
1.7
|
3
|
6.3
|
4.2
|
8.1
|
3.8
|
5
|
5.5
|
| Problem with opening hours |
5.1
|
3.4
|
0
|
3.7
|
4.2
|
8.8
|
7.7
|
5.6
|
6.2
|
| Difficulty affording it |
10.1
|
5.2
|
6.1
|
7.9
|
6.9
|
3.8
|
3.8
|
3.7
|
4.1
|
| Difficulty understanding advice/information |
3
|
0
|
6.1
|
2.6
|
4.2
|
5.6
|
3.8
|
1.9
|
3
|
| No ability to access the internet |
2
|
0
|
6.1
|
2.1
|
0
|
3.1
|
0
|
1.9
|
1.9
|
| Embarrassed to be seen using services |
0
|
1.7
|
0
|
0.5
|
1.4
|
1.3
|
0
|
0.6
|
0.8
|
| English language problems |
0
|
1.7
|
0
|
0.5
|
0
|
1.3
|
0
|
1.7
|
1.4
|
| Inadequate/incorrect information/advice |
1
|
0
|
0
|
0.5
|
0
|
1.3
|
3.8
|
0.8
|
0.9
|
| Adviser reluctant/refused to help |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1.3
|
0
|
1.2
|
1.1
|
| Adviser/service had limited power to help |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2.5
|
0
|
0.6
|
0.9
|
| Other |
0
|
1.7
|
0
|
0.5
|
1.4
|
0.6
|
7.7
|
1.2
|
1.4
|
| No. of events |
99
|
58
|
33
|
190
|
72
|
160
|
26
|
481
|
739
|
b Includes the internet and self-help source.
c Includes the categories of traditional legal adviser, lawyer friend/relative and published source.
d Includes government organisation, local council and member of parliament.
e Includes other professional, school/school counsellor/teacher, non-legal community group, private agency/organisation, company/business/bank, insurance company/broker, trade union/professional body, library, employer and other tribunal.
f Includes the categories of other (non-lawyer) friend/relative, government source, police/complaint handling body and other adviser.
Notes: N=929 events where only one adviser was used. Multiple barriers were sometimes reported in obtaining help from the sole adviser. A significance test was not conducted.
Distance
Table 5.10 shows the distance participants travelled to obtain help from the sole or most useful adviser, by type of region. Overall, participants obtained help without travelling for 44.0 per cent of the legal events where help was sought.20 In many cases, this finding reflects events where help was sought from friends, relatives or the internet, and in other cases is likely to reflect instances where participants obtained information, advice or assistance via the telephone.21 However, in 4.9 per cent of events where help was sought, participants travelled more than 80 kilometres.
A chi-square test was conducted to test whether the distance travelled to obtain assistance depended on whether participants lived in Sydney, the provincial LGA of Newcastle or one of the rural/remote LGAs surveyed. Not surprisingly, the chi-square was significant. Whereas Sydney and Newcastle residents were required to travel over 20 kilometres in response to only 6.5 per cent of the events where they sought help, residents of the rural/remote areas were required to travel over 20 kilometres in response to one-quarter of the events where they sought help. In 12.1 per cent of cases where residents of the rural/remote areas sought help, they travelled over 80 kilometres.
Table 5.10: Distance travelled to obtain assistance from sole or most useful adviser by type of region, all six LGAs, 2003
| Distance travelled (kilometres) |
Sydney (Campbelltown, Fairfield & South Sydney LGAs)
|
Provincial (Newcastle LGA)
|
Rural/remote (Nambucca and Walgett LGAs)
|
All six LGAs
|
||||
|
No. of events
|
% of events
|
No. of events
|
% of events
|
No. of events
|
% of events
|
No. of events
|
% of events
|
| Didn’t need to travel |
309
|
48.1
|
71
|
35.5
|
169
|
41.6
|
549
|
44
|
| < 3 |
137
|
21.3
|
41
|
20.5
|
67
|
16.5
|
245
|
19.6
|
| 4–10 |
112
|
17.4
|
51
|
25.5
|
34
|
8.4
|
197
|
15.8
|
| 11–20 |
42
|
6.5
|
24
|
12
|
36
|
8.9
|
102
|
8.2
|
| 21–80 |
38
|
5.9
|
5
|
2.5
|
51
|
12.6
|
94
|
7.5
|
| 81+ |
4
|
0.6
|
8
|
4
|
49
|
12.1
|
61
|
4.9
|
| Total |
642
|
100
|
200
|
100
|
406
|
100
|
1248
|
100
|
Special services
Participants were also asked whether they needed access to any special services in order to obtain assistance from any adviser they used (see Table 5.11). Special services were required in order to obtain assistance in response to 4.8 per cent (59) of the events where participants sought help.22 The special services that participants reported requiring included medical or counselling help or assistance, home visits or special transport, financial help or assistance, help reading or understanding complex information, wheelchair access, an interpreter, a place for children to play and access to an outreach service.
Participants who reported requiring special services were asked whether they managed to obtain these services. These services were obtained for 71.2 per cent (42) of the 59 events where participants required special services.
Table 5.11: Special services required to obtain assistance from any adviser, all six LGAs, 2003
| Type of special service | Events where help sought | |
|
No.
|
%
|
| No special service required |
1161
|
95.2
|
| Medical/counselling help/assistance |
16
|
1.3
|
| Home visit or special transport |
8
|
0.7
|
| Financial help/assistance |
8
|
0.7
|
| Help reading/understanding complex information |
6
|
0.5
|
| Wheelchair access |
4
|
0.3
|
| An interpreter |
4
|
0.3
|
| Place for children to play |
3
|
0.2
|
| Outreach service |
2
|
0.2
|
| Othera |
15
|
1.2
|
Notes: N=1220 events. Information on special services was missing for 276 events where help was sought. Multiple special services were sometimes required for the same event.
Summary: seeking help for legal events
This chapter examined the 1496 legal events where participants sought help, detailing the advisers used, the type of assistance received and the barriers to accessing assistance.
For over three-quarters (78.4% or 1167) of the legal events where help was sought, participants only used one adviser.
Participants did not limit themselves to traditional legal advisers, using a broad range of advisers in response to legal events. Traditional legal advisers, such as private lawyers, local courts, Legal Aid NSW, LawAccess NSW, Aboriginal legal services and CLCs were used in only 12.0 per cent of events where participants sought help. In almost three-quarters of cases, the advisers used were neither traditional legal advisers nor less formal legal advisers, such as friends or relatives who are lawyers, and published sources. The most commonly used advisers were non-legal professionals such as doctors, accountants, psychologists and counsellors (24.5% of events); friends or relatives who are not lawyers (15.5%); government organisations (15.3%); private solicitors/barristers (9.6%); the internet (7.4%); friends or relatives who are lawyers (7.0%); trade unions or professional bodies (6.4%); insurance companies/brokers (5.9%); school staff (5.7%); and the police (5.2%).
The type of adviser used tended to vary appropriately according to the type of legal event experienced.23
For at least one-quarter of the events where help was sought, only non-legal help was sought or provided. The type of help received appeared to depend on the type of adviser.24 For example, traditional legal advisers tended to be more likely than other advisers to provide some form of legal information, advice or assistance. Advice or assistance of a medical, financial or insurance nature tended to be provided more commonly by non-legal rather than legal advisers. The type of help received also appeared to vary with the type of legal event.25 For example, specific legal advice was provided for relatively high proportions of wills/estates (52.3%) and family (34.2%) events. Medical advice or assistance was provided for relatively high proportions of accident/injury (47.8%) and health (31.4%) events. Non-legal counselling or support was provided for relatively high proportions of domestic violence events (40.7%).
Barriers to obtaining assistance were reported for almost two-fifths of the legal events where participants sought help. The most commonly reported barriers to accessing assistance were difficulty getting through on the telephone (18.4%), delay in getting a response (17.0%), difficulty getting an appointment (11.0%), the lack of local services (8.1%), problems with opening hours (7.6%), difficulty affording the assistance (6.0%), and difficulty understanding the advice or information given (4.7%).
The types of barriers reported in obtaining assistance from traditional legal advisers were largely similar to those for other advisers.
Participants did not need to travel to access assistance for 44.0 per cent of the legal events where they sought help. However, participants travelled more than 20 kilometres in response to 12.4 per cent of the events where help was sought and over 80 kilometres in response to 4.9 per cent of events. The distance travelled significantly depended on participants’ region of residence. Whereas approximately one-quarter of participants living in a rural/remote area travelled over 20 kilometres, only 6.5 per cent of Sydney and Newcastle respondents travelled this distance.