Note: the original hard copy of this report is 350 pages. Would you like to order a hard copy?

cover image

Justice made to measure: NSW legal needs survey in disadvantaged areas  

, 2006 Six disadvantaged areas were surveyed by telephone interviews: three suburban areas within Sydney (Campbelltown, Fairfield, South Sydney), one major provincial centre (Newcastle) and two rural/remote areas (Nambucca and Walgett)...

Ch 10. Towards improving access to justice: a multidimensional approach


Legal needs cut across many areas of everyday life, and their resolution involves people from many walks of life. However, people have different legal needs. Some have multiple, complex legal needs, while others are more resilient. People also choose different means of handling their legal issues, and some people are less successful than others in resolving their problems. This diversity in experience suggests that a broad-brush, one-size-fits-all approach to accessing justice in the disadvantaged areas surveyed would be less than ideal. No single strategy is likely to be successful in meeting all problems for all people.

Increasingly, thinking on access to justice is moving away from unidimensional strategies that concentrate solely on the provision of easily accessible, high quality reactive legal services. More and more, the emphasis is shifting to multi-pronged approaches that include preventative and proactive strategies in addition to reactive strategies, in an effort to maximise both the appropriate utilisation of the legal system and the efficient targeting of limited resources (e.g. MacDonald 2005; Pleasence et al. 2004b). MacDonald (2005) identifies five waves in thinking about the concept of access to justice which demonstrate its evolution over recent decades:

1. concentrating on equal access to lawyers and courts

2. correcting structural inadequacies within the court and legal aid systems

3. ‘demystifying’ the law through, for example, the plain language movement

4. recognising the importance of preventative law, including the role of alternative dispute resolution, and, more recently

5. developing proactive strategies to empower citizens to access legal education, information and assistance services, and to participate in every institution in which law is created, found, administered, interpreted and applied.

MacDonald (2005) argues that a multidimensional approach to justice enables legal services to be tailored to the needs of individuals. While there is no easy formula for determining in advance what access to justice solution will be most appropriate for any given person, a ‘menu’ of options to accessing justice allows individualised choice.

Supporting a multidimensional approach, the present results suggest a number of reactive, preventative and proactive strategies that could play critical roles in access to justice in the disadvantaged areas surveyed. In particular, such strategies include:



Building capacity through information and education


There is clearly a role for improved information and education about legal rights and remedies in the communities surveyed, as indicated by the present findings that people frequently ignore their legal needs and believe that taking action will make no difference. Furthermore, the frequent use of friends and family as advisers, and the high level of satisfaction with these advisers, also suggests the potential value of improving the general level of legal literacy—not only among those who are likely to experience legal problems, but also among the broader community who may be asked for advice in relation to legal issues. Rather than disrupting the established informal personal networks for obtaining initial advice, the value of these networks could be strengthened by improving their skill base in identifying legal rights and in providing informed guidance about the possible pathways for legal resolution.

Numerous past studies, both in Australia and overseas, have similarly highlighted a lack of general knowledge about the legal system and have argued for the need to enhance such knowledge (e.g. Australian Law Reform Commission 1992; Cass & Sackville 1975; Genn 1999; Pleasence et al. 2004b; Rush 1999; Scott & Sage 2001; Tilse et al. 2002; Urbis Keys Young 2002; Women’s Legal Resources Centre 1994; Worthington Di Marzio and Cultural Partners Australia 2001). For example, Genn (1999) argues that, in the United Kingdom, the emphasis in legal advice provision tends to be geared towards disaster management, and there are few information or education strategies that equip the public with the skills to avoid problems from arising or to deal effectively with problems before they escalate. Instead, education about legal rights and remedies tends to be received informally, in a haphazard and sometimes biased manner, through sources such as the media. In Australia, legal service provision similarly appears to be largely reactive. A number of studies indicate a high level of unmet legal need and some suggest that it is not uncommon for legal advice to be sought only after legal problems have reached crisis point (Fishwick 1992; Forell et al. 2005; LJF 2003; Rush 1999; Scott & Sage 2001). Furthermore, previous Australian studies have reported confusion about the legal services offered by different agencies and low public awareness of the existence of legal service agencies such as Legal Aid NSW and CLCs (Cass & Sackville 1975; Fishwick 1992; Rush 1999; Scott & Sage 2001; Women’s Legal Resources Centre 1994).

In addition to increasing knowledge about legal rights and formal legal services, general information and education strategies could also stress the many non-legal pathways that people use to resolve legal issues—justice is not solely obtained through the use of lawyers (MacDonald 2005; Pleasence et al. 2004b). Present and past results demonstrate that people consult a wide range of non-legal professionals and personal contacts, and that legal representation is often a rare and last resort.

Improving knowledge about legal rights, legal services and realistic legal outcomes has the potential to help mobilise people to respond appropriately to their legal problems rather than to ignore them, and the potential to build people’s capacity for resolving legal problems quickly and effectively. The present study confirmed that legal problems are less likely to be resolved if people take no action. As argued in the literature, improving legal knowledge also has the potential to:


There are different mechanisms that could be used to inform and educate the public about legal issues and pathways for legal resolution. A challenge for legal service providers, policy makers and government is to develop an effective, coordinated public legal information and education strategy to maximise early intervention and prevent escalation of legal problems.1 While there is considerable literature on consumer behaviour and best practice in consumer education in a number of areas such as advertising and marketing (e.g. Flowers, Chodkiewicz, Yasukawa, McEwen, Ng, Stanton & Johnston 2001; Sheth et al. 1999), there has been little systematic evidence-based research on best practice in specifically providing community legal education and communicating information about legal rights and legal service provision. In Australia, it has been argued that community legal education is often not seen as priority by lawyers, despite its potential in improving access to justice (Goldie 1997). As a result, there is a pressing need to evaluate the effectiveness of whatever new legal education and information strategies are developed, as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of any such existing strategies. Legal information is only of value if it is easily accessible, understood and used effectively, and careful consideration needs to be given to developing effective mechanisms for the assimilation of legal information by people who need it (MacDonald 2005; Scott 1999).

Some of the mechanisms for legal education suggested in the literature involve raising general awareness of legal rights and legal services in the community at large by providing generic legal information. For example, it has been suggested that basic legal information could be disseminated via school curriculums, pamphlets, videotapes, radio spots, the internet and consumer hotlines (Genn 1999; MacDonald 2005; Pleasence et al. 2004b). In keeping with the frequent use of non-legal advisers in response to legal events (e.g. Genn 1999; LJF 2003; Maxwell et al. 1999; Pleasence et al. 2004b), it has also been suggested that legal information could be disseminated via non-legal professionals, services or agencies that routinely engage the public or are available to the public at specific points in their lives, such as community health clinics, social service agencies, health and welfare professionals, government and regulatory agencies, non-government organisations and consumer groups (MacDonald 2005; Pleasence et al. 2004b). The potential use of non-legal professionals for the dissemination of legal information will be discussed in more detail later in the sections The role of non-legal services and Coordinating service provision and managing demand.

While generic legal information provides a starting point for raising general awareness and knowledge about legal issues, the literature suggests that generic information has limited usefulness when used as a strategy on its own and needs to be supplemented with more customised information or other forms of assistance to be most effective (Currie 2000; Flowers et al. 2001; Giddings & Robertson 2003b; MacDonald 2005; Scott & Sage 2001).

In particular, the literature suggests that consumer information is more likely to be useful if it is timely and relevant, that is, if it is provided at the point when a person is trying to solve a particular problem and is specific to the problem at hand (Flowers et al. 2001; Goldie 1997). Realistically, the aim of legal information and education strategies cannot be to equip the general public with the comprehensive and sophisticated legal knowledge required for them to act as de facto legal practitioners who have the expertise to resolve, on their own, every legal issue that they could potentially encounter at any point in their lives. Achieving such an aim would almost certainly be oppressively resource intensive. Instead, a more feasible aim of community legal education would be to equip the general public with sufficient knowledge to recognise when they have a legal need, and to readily identify where to go for appropriate legal advice and assistance. Thus, raising the level of legal literacy among the general public requires enhancing knowledge about both legal rights and the available pathways for legal resolution.

Perhaps the most useful step towards raising legal literacy about pathways for legal resolution would be to raise public awareness about useful first ports of call for legal information and advice, such as the LawAccess NSW telephone service and CLCs. LawAccess NSW acts a legal ‘triage’, helping to provide the general public with an initial legal ‘diagnosis’. LawAccess NSW provides information and advice about legal issues and, where appropriate, also provides referrals to specialist legal services. Wide advertising and dissemination of the LawAccess NSW telephone number has the potential to provide a simple and effective gateway to legal services, and to complement strategies providing more ongoing, generic community legal information and education.

Another step towards improving the timely access of specific legal information might be to improve people’s expertise in accessing relevant electronic legal information through the internet when they need it (Scott 1999). Although computer literacy is no doubt improving in today’s technological society, there are still sections of the community who have limited computer literacy skills or do not have ready access to the internet. In addition, helpful problem-specific information needs to be available for dissemination at the point where individuals first make contact with legal service agencies.

The consumer education literature also suggests that information strategies are more likely to be effective if they are tailored to meet the specific needs of particular groups of people rather than if they use a one-size-fits-all approach (Flowers et al. 2001). The implications of the present results for tailoring legal information strategies to meet the particular legal needs of different sociodemographic groups are detailed in the following section on Tailoring legal services for specific sociodemographic groups.

A number of authors warn that while legal education and information are necessary, they are often not sufficient to resolve legal problems, and should not be regarded as cheap alternatives to legal advice, assistance and representation (Genn 1999; Genn & Paterson 2001; Giddings & Robertson 2003a; Pleasence et al. 2004b). Genn and Paterson (2001) point out that individuals must not only be able to recognise problems, but must also be able to identify when advice is necessary, and must be able to communicate effectively in order to act on their own, obtain advice or instruct others to act for them. Furthermore, those with poor literacy, language or communication skills, and those with complex or serious problems, may require high levels of assistance and support from legal advisers once a legal problem has been identified (Genn 1999). It has also been noted in the literature that, over and above legal assistance, some individuals may additionally require non-legal assistance, such as advocacy or support from human service agencies, in order to resolve their legal problems effectively (Forell et al. 2005; Scott 1999; Scott & Sage 2001).

Thus, the empowerment of individuals through legal education and the provision of relevant and timely legal information is often only a preliminary step towards legal resolution. The present findings also suggest other strategies that are likely to be useful in legal resolution, which are discussed below.



Tailoring legal services for specific sociodemographic groups


Particular sociodemographic groups appear to be especially vulnerable to certain types of legal problems, less likely to seek legal advice or less able to resolve legal problems. These findings suggest that particular attention should be devoted to ensuring that legal information, advice and assistance services are tailored to meet the particular needs of different sociodemographic groups.

Age

The present results show that different types of legal problems predominate at certain ages. Specifically:


These results suggest that there may be some benefit in ensuring that legal education and information strategies, as well as legal service provision, are mindful of the different types of legal problems that tend to be faced by people of different ages. The implications for legal information strategies are that information on particular legal matters could be targeted to the age group most likely to experience those issues, could be communicated in a form appropriate for that age group, and could be disseminated via pathways easily accessible for that age group. For example, given that general crime and accident/injury issues peak in young adulthood, one possible pathway for providing specific legal information on these issues may be through high schools. Furthermore, if legal information is distributed through non-legal professionals and services that engage the public at specific points in their lives, such as health and welfare professionals, community health clinics, social service agencies and other government agencies (MacDonald 2005; Pleasence et al. 2004b), there may be benefit in this information focusing on the legal problems that are common at those life stages. For example, if a legal education dimension were added to pre-natal classes as suggested by MacDonald (2003),2 then this would be an appropriate opportunity to focus on the legal issues that predominate for parents of young families (e.g. family, credit/debt, government and housing issues).

Similarly, legal advice and assistance provision could also be tailored to the needs of different age groups. For example, regions of NSW with relatively large youth or older populations may benefit from having specialist legal services to meet the particular legal needs of these populations (e.g. Ellison et al. 2004), whether these are separate agencies or specialised arms within more generalist legal services. In the case of older people, a recent qualitative research study suggested the benefit of a specialist legal service to address the particular legal needs faced by older people, and to provide legal resolution via pathways that are preferred by older people and that overcome the specific barriers to accessing justice faced by older people (Ellison et al. 2004).

The present study also showed that the youngest and the oldest age groups tended to seek help for their legal issues relatively less often than some other age groups. As a result, legal education and information strategies specifically targeted to each of these age groups may be useful in encouraging and empowering these groups to seek help to resolve their legal problems.

The present finding that resolution rates tended to decrease with increasing age also suggests that people may require greater levels of support and involvement from advisers in order to resolve their problems as they get older.

Disability

The present study found that, of all the sociodemographic groups examined, people with a chronic illness or disability stood out as being particularly vulnerable to a wide range of civil, criminal and family legal problems. In addition to being especially vulnerable to experiencing legal events, this group was also found to have a reduced capacity to resolve the legal problems they face. Thus, the present study suggests that meeting the legal needs of people with a chronic illness or disability should be a top priority.

People with chronic ill-health have been identified as a group suffering multiple disadvantage (ABS 2004c), and some authors have argued that people with a disability are the ‘most socially excluded’ of disadvantaged groups (e.g. Howard 1999, cited in Pleasence et al. 2004b). The present results suggest that people with a chronic illness or disability are definitely a group with a high level of legal need and indicate the importance of ensuring that legal services are targeted to meet the needs of this group. The vulnerability of this group to many types of legal problems suggests that this group may benefit from education and information about a wide range of legal issues, and that specialised legal advice and assistance services for this group may be warranted.

Interestingly, as noted earlier, the reduced capacity of people with a chronic illness or disability to resolve legal issues was not due to them being less willing to seek advice for their legal needs, but may reflect the added complexity posed by their illness or disability when faced with legal issues, or the difficulty in dealing with multiple legal needs. A worthwhile question for future research is to examine in more detail the particular barriers experienced by people with a chronic illness or disability in resolving legal issues, and the points within the legal resolution process where these barriers are experienced. For example, barriers may be experienced at the point of obtaining legal advice or at the point of attempting to implement that advice, or both. Thus, people with a chronic illness or disability may benefit from information strategies that would help them make optimal choices in terms of where or how they seek legal advice.

The finding that people with a chronic illness or disability have reduced capacity for resolving their legal issues suggests that these people may require some sort of additional assistance or support in order to resolve their legal problems effectively. Furthermore, given their health needs, it is quite possible that they have multiple, complex legal and non-legal problems and would benefit from a coordinated response from legal services and broader non-legal support and advocacy services in order to effectively act on legal advice. Providing a more coordinated response from legal and non-legal services to meet the needs of people with multiple legal and non-legal problems is discussed further in the section Coordinating service provision and managing demand, below.

Indigenous Australians

In keeping with national statistics suggesting that Indigenous Australians tend to suffer economic and social disadvantage (ABS 2004c, 2004d; ABS & AIHW 2005), the present study found Indigenous Australians to be particularly vulnerable to credit/debt, employment and family problems. Indigenous Australians were also less likely to prepare or alter wills. As already noted, their vulnerability to experiencing employment and family problems is of particular concern given that such problems tend to be longer lasting, more difficult to resolve and likely to trigger further problems (Genn 1999; Pleasence et al. 2004b).

Also of concern was the finding that Indigenous Australians were relatively less likely to seek advice to resolve their legal issues, given that ignoring legal problems was shown to reduce the likelihood of resolution. The reasons behind the increased tendency of Indigenous Australians to take no action in response to legal issues were not specifically explored in the present study and warrant future investigation. However, one possibility is that cultural factors may contribute to a greater reluctance on the part of Indigenous Australians to actively resolve issues. For example, Schetzer and Henderson (2003) reported that some of the barriers to Indigenous people obtaining legal advice and effectively participating in the legal system include Indigenous people distrusting the legal system, disliking the formality of the legal system and court processes, feeling intimidated when approaching legal services, perceiving a lack of cultural awareness, sensitivity and compassion among legal service providers, and perceiving bias or discrimination against Indigenous people in some legal processes. Another possible reason for the increased tendency of Indigenous Australians to take no action is that the multiple disadvantage they experience may compromise their ability to deal with their legal problems.

The current empirical results support the widely held view that meeting the legal needs of Indigenous Australians should be a priority (e.g. Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit 2005; Schetzer & Henderson 2003). Policy makers and legal service providers need to determine how best to ensure that legal services reach this group, and how to overcome any barriers to Indigenous people accessing legal services. The present results provide a number of guides about improving access to justice for Indigenous Australians. Firstly, the present findings suggest that legal service providers who specialise in dealing with Indigenous clients are likely to require expertise in, or appropriate contact referrals for, the areas of the law related to credit/debt, employment and family matters.

Secondly, given Indigenous people’s increased tendency to take no action to resolve their legal needs, specialised legal information strategies targeted specifically for Indigenous people may prove a useful tool in helping to mobilise Indigenous people to seek legal advice when they experience a legal problem. Such information strategies may be useful, for instance, in encouraging Indigenous Australians to have up-to-date wills.

In addition, past findings suggest that both specialist legal services for Indigenous people, and more generalist legal service agencies whose clients include Indigenous people, need to be culturally appropriate and sensitive in order to encourage Indigenous people to access their service (Schetzer & Henderson 2003). For example, it has been argued that services could be


The multiple disadvantage suffered by Indigenous people may also suggest that Indigenous people sometimes require broad non-legal advocacy and support in order to deal effectively with their legal problems.

Other sociodemographic groups

The present results also have implications for tailoring legal services to meet the specific legal needs of other sociodemographic groups, such as people with low levels of education, people with low incomes and people born in a non-English speaking country.

Firstly, it has already been noted that young people, older people and Indigenous Australians were found to be relatively unlikely to seek help for their legal problems and it was argued that legal education and information strategies specifically tailored to each of these demographic groups may be useful in encouraging them to actively address their legal problems. Another group who were relatively less likely to seek help were people with low levels of education. Thus, legal education or information strategies targeting this demographic group may also be particularly useful in empowering this group to take action to resolve their legal issues.

Secondly, the present low reporting rates of legal events among older people, people born in a non-English speaking country, people on low incomes and people with low levels of education may also have implications for legal education and information strategies. In some instances, low reporting rates of legal issues reflect a failure to recognise legal issues or a reluctance to complain about them. While the reasons behind these lower reporting rates were outside the scope of the present study and warrant future investigation, some past studies have reported low levels of legal knowledge among older people, low-income groups and some culturally and linguistically diverse populations (e.g. Australian Law Reform Commission 1992; Cass & Sackville 1975; Ellison et al. 2004; Rush 1999; Tilse et al. 2002; Urbis Keys Young 2002; Women’s Legal Resources Centre 1994; Worthington et al. 2001). To the extent that these lower reporting rates reflect a lack of knowledge about legal matters, then legal information strategies which assist these groups to identify and deal effectively with legal problems may be beneficial.



Tailoring legal services for specific legal needs


The present study suggests the potential benefit of carefully tailoring legal information, advice and assistance services to meet different types of legal needs. Some legal issues are much more common than others and some are genuinely more difficult to resolve. Furthermore, the type of legal issue experienced is related to whether or not individuals seek legal advice, where they go for advice and whether or not they are satisfied with the outcome.

Consequently, as argued elsewhere (Genn 1999; Genn & Paterson 2001), in setting priorities for the provision of legal information, advice and assistance services, some consideration needs to be given to the type of legal issue. Legal services should be able to deal effectively not only with frequently occurring legal problems, but also with legal problems that are relatively intractable, likely to appear in clusters or likely to trigger additional problems. In the present study, relatively frequently occurring legal events related to general crime, housing, consumer, government, accident/injury and wills/estates issues. Legal events that were relatively less likely to be resolved involved business, employment, government, health and family issues. As noted earlier, resource allocation for legal service provision should take into account the fact that some legal matters may require greater resources, time or expertise to resolve. Some problems can be resolved with the provision of appropriate legal advice, whereas others require further assistance, representation or support to achieve a satisfactory outcome (e.g. Genn 1999).

Legal practitioners and policy makers should also be aware of the legal issues for which people tend to seek help and those for which people are less inclined to do so. The present study indicated that respondents were most likely to seek help for accident/injury, employment and wills/estates events, and least likely to seek help for consumer and human rights events. The reasons why people were less likely to seek help for consumer and human rights events were not specifically examined. However, people may decide not to seek advice for certain legal issues because those issues are relatively unimportant, because appropriate services to resolve those issues are not readily available, because they are unaware of the relevant services or because they perceive the available services to be inadequate. Consequently, a question for future research is to investigate whether the reduced tendency to seek help for consumer and human rights issues reflects a low demand or an inadequate supply of services to address these issues in the areas of NSW surveyed. In the United Kingdom, Pleasence et al. (2004b) found that help was more likely to be sought for serious problems.

Legal service providers also need to recognise the legal issues for which clients tend to be dissatisfied with the outcome, particularly because such dissatisfaction may provide a disincentive for seeking legal assistance in the future. The present survey found higher than average satisfaction with the outcome of accident/injury and wills/estates events, and lower than average satisfaction with the outcome of business, consumer, government and general crime events. As noted earlier, some legal issues are more difficult to resolve in the client’s favour, particularly where disputes or disagreements with other parties are involved. Thus, an important task for legal practitioners should be to ensure that their clients have realistic expectations about the likely outcomes of their legal issues.

The diverse areas covered within the law and the complexity of the legal system have inevitably resulted in a degree of specialisation among legal practitioners. Indeed, in recent years, the United States has seen the emergence of ‘micro-niche’ legal practices that specialise in extremely narrow areas of the law (ABA SCDLS 2002). Legal specialisation, like medical specialisation, is conducive to the provision of expert advice and assistance with regard to specific problems.

However, legal specialisation in NSW has tended to result in legal service delivery being ‘siloed’ by the type of legal matter (Forell et al. 2005). The present finding that various types of civil, criminal and family issues tend to occur in clusters suggests that, in some instances, it will be inadequate to deal with each legal issue in isolation, without also addressing interconnected legal issues. As is discussed further in the section Coordinating service provision and managing demand, below, there is a need to better coordinate legal services that specialise in different legal issues so that the needs of people facing multiple, interrelated legal issues can be addressed efficiently and effectively. In the present study, family and domestic violence problems tended to co-occur, as did credit/debt and business issues, and as did general crime, consumer, government, housing, accident/injury, employment and wills/estates issues.



Improving the accessibility of legal services


The present results suggest that, while there is always room for improvement, once respondents access legal services, they generally understand, and are satisfied with, the advice they receive. While English language problems, cost, psychological factors and difficulty accessing special services3 were barriers to obtaining legal advice for some respondents, they were not common obstacles in the present sample. However, given that the present sample was not necessarily representative of all disadvantaged populations within NSW, it is still possible that these factors may represent significant obstacles to accessing justice for some groups of disadvantaged people within NSW.4

The common barriers faced by the present respondents related to accessing legal services in a timely fashion, suggesting that existing legal services were sometimes unable to respond efficiently and effectively to the current demand. Respondents residing in rural/remote areas also had to travel substantial distances to access services in some cases. It appears that dedicated legal advice services are not always readily available where and when people want to use them. As Pleasence et al. (2004b) suggest, better access to justice is likely to be served by


Thus, additional staffing, extension of opening hours, and additional locally accessible services may be warranted if legal services are to provide quick, effective advice and assistance. More outreach services that provide legal services close to the neighbourhood and workplaces of clients may also be useful. Entrepreneurial outreach models in the United States include a mobile legal service in California, sponsored self-help legal information offices housed in churches in Washington DC and a neighbourhood coffeehouse staffed by lawyers ready to provide legal information (ABA SCDLS 2002).

Pleasence et al. (2004b) note that, in the United Kingdom, the extent to which legal advice services can mirror the needs and behaviour of their clients is limited by existing resources. Recent Australian studies suggest that CLCs and Legal Aid NSW offices are under-funded and have limited capacity to provide services, particularly in rural and remote areas (Forell et al. 2005; Schetzer & Henderson 2003; Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee 2004). Clearly, running additional legal services, or extending the current operation of existing legal services, cannot be easily achieved without appropriate funding.



The role of non-legal services


Most people have some sort of legal need and some people experience numerous, complicated legal problems. Legal needs reflect the wide range of legal rights and obligations related to many areas of physical and social well-being, including health, welfare, housing, education, employment, debt, citizenship, family relationships and policing. In short, legal needs reflect the problems people face as members of a broad civil society, and often impact on more than one aspect of people’s lives. Furthermore, legal problems are frequently not isolated events, but can interact with, contribute to, and cause further legal and non-legal problems.

The interplay of legal needs with other basic human needs suggests that bi-directional links between legal and non-legal services may be useful. Specifically, links between legal and non-legal services may be useful both for:


People in the former category may benefit from non-legal support services, while people in the latter may benefit from non-legal professionals acting as gateways to legal services.

Non-legal support services

The nature of legal needs suggests that attempts by legal service providers to deal with each legal event in isolation, without regard to its full impact or to its interconnected legal and non-legal problems, may well result in an incomplete solution in some cases. Given the overlap of legal needs with other basic needs associated with physical and social well-being, a complete solution may not only require legal advice or assistance, but also broader non-legal support services, such as support through housing, financial counselling, social, welfare, family or health services.

Thus, in some instances, individuals who seek help for a legal issue may benefit from a coordinated response to both their legal and non-legal needs. A number of authors similarly argue that those with complex or serious legal problems may require broader non-legal support to achieve effective legal resolution (Forell et al. 2005; Scott 1999; Scott & Sage 2001). For example, a recent qualitative study examining the legal needs of homeless people in NSW argued that homeless people may benefit from coordinated legal and non-legal support strategies given their tendency to experience multiple, compounding legal and social problems (Forell et al. 2005).

As already discussed, the present results suggest that people with a chronic illness or disability may well be a group who require non-legal support strategies to achieve a complete solution for their legal needs given their vulnerability to a wide range of problems and their reduced ability to resolve these problems. As noted elsewhere, the interplay of health and legal needs among this group suggests that the prevention, identification and resolution of legal problems within this group should be treated as both a public health and justice policy objective (Pleasence, Balmer, Buck, O’Grady & Genn 2004a; Pleasence et al. 2004b).

The current results suggest that Indigenous Australians may also be a group who would benefit from coordinated legal and non-legal support strategies given their elevated risk of long lasting legal problems, their increased tendency to leave their legal problems unaddressed, and, according to past research, their vulnerability to multiple socioeconomic disadvantage.

Possible methods for improving the collaboration, coordination and integration between legal and non-legal services are addressed below in the section Coordinating service provision and managing demand.

Non-legal professionals as gateways to legal services

The present study indicates that individuals experience a high volume of legal issues for which they do not consult legal practitioners or engage the legal system. When people seek help in response to an event that has legal consequences, they use traditional legal advisers very rarely. In three-quarters of the cases where individuals seek advice for legal issues, they use neither traditional legal advisers nor less formal legal sources. Instead, in the majority of cases, people obtain advice from family and friends, and from a broad range of non-legal professionals, including professionals working in medical, health, counselling, welfare, government, trade union, accounting, insurance, school and policing settings. Thus, there appears to be an informal network of non-legal practitioners who are routinely consulted by people with legal problems. In at least one-quarter of cases, the advice sought in response to issues that have legal implications is of a non-legal nature, such as medical assistance or financial advice. Other studies have similarly found that the first point of professional contact for people with legal problems is often non-legal agencies such as general welfare agencies, housing authorities, financial counselling services, schools and family support services (Pleasence et al. 2004b; RPP Consulting 2003).

As Pleasence et al. (2004b) maintain, the current informal but routine use of non-legal professionals by people with legal needs could be harnessed and used to greater advantage. Given that non-legal professionals are often the first, and sometimes the only, professionals who are consulted by people with legal problems, such non-legal professionals are ideally placed to notice legal problems. Consequently, non-legal professionals could be used to ‘signpost’ legal problems and act as ‘gateways’ into legal services (Pleasence et al. 2004b). The aim would not be to equip non-legal professionals with the skills to take over the legal advisory and assistance role provided by legal practitioners, but rather, to raise the level of legal literacy among non-legal professionals so that they can identify people who have legal problems and can encourage them to take appropriate steps to address their legal problems.

Pleasence et al. (2004b) suggest that non-legal professionals could be equipped with the necessary information resources to refer individuals to appropriate legal services or to provide individuals with basic legal information. Pleasence et al. further note that the best referring action by non-legal professionals may simply be to provide individuals with the telephone number of a dedicated generalist legal advice service. For example, in NSW, non-legal professionals could provide the phone number of LawAccess NSW or of the nearest CLC. As noted earlier, LawAccess NSW acts as a legal triage whereby individuals are given basic legal information and advice and, where necessary, are referred to an appropriate specialist legal service.

Using non-legal professionals as gateways to legal services has the potential to substantially enhance early legal intervention and resolution. The importance of early intervention in maximising outcomes and avoiding more complex problems has been emphasised in recent years (e.g. Forell et al. 2005; MacKenzie & Chamberlain 2003; Pleasence et al. 2004b).



Coordinating service provision and managing demand


As noted by Pleasence et al. (2004b), a holistic, integrated approach to justice requires appropriate coordination to work efficiently and to avoid duplication, as well as appropriate investment and mechanisms of quality assurance. The present study highlights the importance of coordination not only between different types of legal services, but also between legal agencies and non-legal agencies that provide services to individuals with legal needs.

The current structure of legal services

Currently in NSW, a diverse range of agencies provide legal information, advice and assistance for disadvantaged people, including both public, not-for-profit organisations and private organisations. These agencies include:


A structural feature of the present landscape of legal service delivery in NSW is that different types of legal issues tend to be dealt with separately by different legal service providers who function fairly autonomously (Forell et al. 2005; Scott & Sage 2001). For example, a CLC may assist with a debt matter, a duty lawyer may assist in a criminal matter, a grant of legal aid may be provided for a family law issue, and the police may assist with an apprehended violence order (Forell et al. 2005). As noted earlier, this problem-focused approach is conducive to expertise about different types of legal issues being developed by different services. The present study confirmed the importance of taking into account the type of legal issue when setting priorities for legal service provision, given that some legal events were particularly frequent, some were unlikely to result in advice seeking, others were particularly difficult to resolve and others tended to result in dissatisfaction with the outcome.

While there is little evidence-based empirical research on how legal agencies work together in Australia, a number of recent reports have noted a lack of coordination between legal agencies and anecdotal cases of high levels of inappropriate referral, suggesting a lack of clear pathways for clients (Australian Law Reform Commission 2000; Family Law Pathways Advisory Group 2001; Scott & Sage 2001). Consequently, discrete and uncoordinated legal services for different types of legal issues are likely to be less than ideal when people experience multiple legal problems. The present study demonstrated that various types of civil, criminal and family issues tend to co-occur. These types of issues are not only covered by different parts of the law but, as noted above, also tend to be handled by different types of legal services. The present study also showed that people with a chronic illness or disability tended to experience multiple legal issues and have lower rates of resolution. As argued by Forell et al. (2005) in relation to homeless people, the multiple legal issues faced by some people mean that they potentially need to access a variety of autonomous or independently functioning legal services for their different legal issues. These services tend to deal with discrete aspects of their legal problems without necessarily coordinating to address the complex situations they are facing.

Thus, the present study suggests that a challenge for policy makers and legal service providers is to reconcile the need to provide expert, specialised legal services for common and difficult legal problems with the need to provide a more client-focused approach for clients with multiple legal needs. The issue of improving the collaboration and coordination between legal services is addressed in the section Coordinating legal and non-legal services, below.

The current role of non-legal services

To a large extent, legal services in NSW traditionally work outside the networks of human services such as health, social, welfare and housing services. In addition, well-established cross-sectoral networks between legal and non-legal agencies with a specific focus on assisting clients with legal problems appear to be relatively uncommon (Forell et al. 2005; Scott & Sage 2001). Although, following the move in the United States and elsewhere, there have been a number of recent initiatives in Australia involving the integration of human services, these initiatives rarely include formalised collaboration with legal service agencies (see Fine, Pancharatnam & Thomson 2005; Forell et al. 2005; RPP Consulting 2003; Tayler, Farrell, Tennent & Patterson 2004). For example, the NSW Government’s Better Service Delivery Program does not appear to involve legal service agencies (Forell et al. 2005). Thus, legal services tend to operate fairly separately from human services in Australia and any links between them appear generally to be relatively informal and unsystematic.

Furthermore, although as argued earlier, non-legal professionals are well placed to notice legal problems and to act as gateways to legal services given their routine contact with people who have legal needs, they are not necessarily well equipped to perform this role currently. Non-legal professionals often have no legal training, do not necessarily have easy access to relevant legal information, and do not necessarily have the knowledge to provide appropriate referrals to legal services. Recent qualitative research studies in NSW have demonstrated that non-legal workers sometimes feel uncertain about what legal information to provide and what pathways to recommend for legal resolution (Forell et al. 2005; Scott & Sage 2001). For example, such non-legal workers sometimes felt they only had limited knowledge of the law, were fearful of providing incorrect or out-of-date legal information, were unclear about their legal obligations, had difficulty delineating the provision of legal information from the provision of legal advice, did not always have sufficient knowledge of legal services to make appropriate referrals, and did not necessarily have established links with legal professionals or legal services (Forell et al. 2005; Scott & Sage 2001).

Thus, while there is enormous potential benefit in using non-legal professionals as gateways to legal services, the current capacity of non-legal workers to act as gateways to legal information and advice services appears to be rather limited, and any existing links between non-legal workers and legal services appear to be haphazard.

Coordinating legal and non-legal services

As already noted, better coordination among legal and non-legal services may well be beneficial in assisting people with legal needs to use legal services, and in achieving legal resolution for individuals with multiple and severe legal and non-legal problems. In the area of human service delivery, an integrated service approach is increasingly being recognised as having the potential to provide improved access for consumers, increased efficiency with limited resources, enhanced effectiveness, reduced administrative duplication and potential long-term cost savings (Fine et al. 2005; O’Looney 1993).

More recently, the need for better coordination among legal services, and between legal and human services, has also been noted in Australia and other jurisdictions (e.g. Forell et al. 2005; MacDonald 2005; Pleasence et al. 2004b; Scott & Sage 2001). For instance, in the United Kingdom, while some steps have been taken towards the integration of legal and health services (e.g. Legal Services Commission & Community Legal Service 2005), Pleasence et al. (2004b) note that such integration remains in its infancy. They argue there would be benefits in better integration of legal services not only with health services, but also with social services, employment services, education services, and many other government services.

Past research suggests that a coordinated response from legal and non-legal services, where appropriate, is likely to be assisted by clear shared understandings of the complementary roles of different organisations, the identification of aspects of service delivery that are mutually beneficial, adequate resourcing and time commitment to building and maintaining effective relationships, partnerships and referrals, and mechanisms for appropriate quality assurance (Pleasence et al. 2004b; Scott & Sage 2001).

Different models could be used to achieve more coordinated legal and non-legal services in Australia. Increasingly in the area of human services, the phenomenon of service integration is being conceptualised as a continuum, which extends from completely autonomous agencies at one extreme, through a series of more intensive linkages between agencies, to the full integration of agencies to form new units or programs with pooled resources at the other extreme (Fine et al. 2005).

Between the two extremes of full autonomy and full integration, less intensive integration includes cooperative links that establish ongoing ties between parties without surrendering independence. Cooperative links may involve informal or more formal networking and referral between different agencies. In some cases, cooperative links are established within ‘service hub’ or ‘one-stop shop’ models, where different services are located within close proximity or at the same geographic location to enhance customer access and convenience, and to facilitate interaction and referral between services (Fine et al. 2005). Service hubs are seen as practical models of service integration when they are set up in geographic locations that have become a central hub of activity for particular client groups for whatever reason, such as the existence of informal support networks in those areas (Fine et al. 2005).

More intensive integration models, which fall short of full integration, involve planned harmonisation of activities between parties to minimise duplication of tasks and resources. In some more integrated models, case management is used to coordinate service delivery and maintain a client-focused approach (Fine et al. 2005).

In the area of human services, a number of authors warn against a one-size-fits-all approach to service integration, arguing that the degree and type of integration should be tailored to client need and should take into account the degree to which services are complementary (Fine et al. 2005; Leutz 1999). For example, it is noted that while more fully integrated models may be particularly appropriate for people with severe needs, such models tend to be less flexible, and less appropriate for people with less severe needs (Fine et al. 2005; Leutz 1999; O’Looney 1993).

The present study suggests that a one-size-fits-all approach to service integration is also unlikely to be ideal in the area of legal services, given the considerable diversity in the experience of legal need and legal resolution. The findings suggest that a coordinated response among different types of legal services, and between legal and non-legal services, is likely to be particularly useful for people with multiple problems, notably people with a chronic illness or disability. An integrated service approach may be unnecessary for people who experience few, easily resolved legal problems. Furthermore, given the success of some of the present respondents in handling their legal problems on their own, self-help strategies and unbundling of legal services may be as effective as more costly coordinated service approaches for individuals without multiple, complex problems.

One possible step toward better integration of legal and non-legal service delivery would be the provision of basic, routine assessment of the client’s full range of legal and related non-legal needs. Such routine assessment would reveal whether the client requires broader non-legal support services to achieve legal resolution and prevent further problems, and would provide a useful basis for appropriate referral to non-legal services. Such routine assessment could also be used to identify people who would be suited to self-help or unbundled strategies.

The best service integration model for individuals who experience multiple legal needs is a matter for future investigation. Furthermore, different levels of service integration may well be appropriate for different sociodemographic groups who tend to experience different types, numbers and severity of legal needs. Service hubs may be ideal for some groups while more integrated case management approaches may be more appropriate for others. In relation to homeless people, Forell et al. (2005) note that a number of specialist homeless persons’ legal services in Australia are part of service hubs or one-stop shops in that they are located near welfare or community services. They note that such service co-location provides homeless people with easy access to a range of services and provides some scope for a holistic approach to their needs. However, they argue that homeless people would be particularly likely to benefit from a more integrated case management approach that addresses their many complex, interrelated legal and social needs as a package, through closely linked legal and non-legal services.

The present report has argued that increased coordination among legal and non-legal services is likely to be beneficial for people with a chronic illness or disability and Indigenous Australians, given that these sociodemographic groups tend to have multiple legal and non-legal needs. The particular level and type of service coordination suited to each of these groups warrants future empirical investigation. Given that the present study identified different profiles of legal needs and legal resolution strategies for these two sociodemographic groups, it is possible that they may be best suited to different models of service coordination.

The best practice service integration model for strengthening the gateway role of non-legal professionals would also need to be identified through appropriate empirical testing and evaluation. While this model would require the enhancement of cooperative links between non-legal professionals and legal services, it would probably be achievable while maintaining independence between legal and non-legal services. Promoting such a gateway role would require the investment of time and resources to train non-legal professionals to recognise legal problems, to strengthen the networks between legal and non-legal professionals, and to develop and implement effective referral systems between non-legal and legal professionals (Pleasence et al. 2004b; Scott & Sage 2001). The value of ensuring that referral to legal services by non-legal workers is appropriate and efficient is highlighted by recent overseas studies which demonstrate that individuals typically experience ‘referral fatigue’ and give up trying to resolve legal problems if they are referred from adviser to adviser without receiving useful advice quickly (Genn 1999; Pleasence et al. 2004b). The use of non-legal professionals to signpost legal problems requires a simple, effective referral system, just as efficient, appropriate referral is required from generalist legal service providers to more specialist legal services.

Managing demand

Present and past findings demonstrate that the public experiences a high volume of events for which the legal system could be utilised but currently is not. Furthermore, the present study indicates that some individuals face complex, multiple legal problems and past studies show that some individuals do not reach legal services before their situation has hit crisis point (e.g. Forell et al. 2005). In short, in many cases, individuals are failing to access justice, and there is a large ‘dark figure’ of hidden potential demand for legal services and the justice system (Genn 1999).

The present study has suggested a number of strategies for improving access to justice in the areas surveyed, including increasing the level of legal knowledge in the community, the accessibility of legal services and the efficient referral to appropriate legal services. It is important to note that such strategies have the potential to substantially increase the workload of certain legal service agencies, particularly agencies that provide initial legal advice. This potential increase in demand would need to be managed appropriately and may require increased funding of existing legal services or funding of additional legal services.

The various models for increasing coordination among legal services, and between legal and non-legal services, would also generally involve set-up and maintenance costs. Fine et al. (2005) note that the costs involved will vary with the type of service integration model adopted, with more integrated service approaches tending to involve higher set-up costs. They stress, however, that tailoring integration approaches to the needs of clients will reduce unnecessary costs, and that more expensive, intensively integrated approaches are likely to be most appropriate for client groups with severe problems.

Furthermore, in considering the costs of any new access to justice initiatives, it is important to consider potential long-term savings as well as short-term outlays. In the area of human services, integrated service approaches are generally believed to have long-term cost benefits, although stringent evaluations of cost-effectiveness are often not conducted (Fine et al. 2005). Similarly, there may be considerable value in investing in early access to legal information and advice since such early intervention may reduce the necessity for more intensive intervention as people’s problems escalate and trigger further difficulties. Early intervention may well increase pre-court resolution, and hence, decrease the need for expensive court litigation. MacDonald (2005) notes that ‘task forces invariably conclude that litigation is an expensive and inefficient mechanism to resolve civil disputes’ (p. 54). Clearly, it is worthwhile investing in cost-benefit analyses of new access to justice initiatives to identify strategies that maximise client outcomes while minimising costs and resources.

As a number of authors have noted, while there is no reason for investment in legal services to emanate only from the public sector, the effective coordination and targeting of resources is ultimately the responsibility of government (MacDonald 2005; Pleasence et al. 2004b). In Australia, it is worth noting that the funding of legal services is complicated by the fragmentation of state and Commonwealth law. Some legal issues fall within state law while others fall within Commonwealth law. Furthermore, some of the main legal service agencies in NSW receive funding from both the state and Commonwealth governments.5 This state/Commonwealth fragmentation needs to be navigated successfully if greater coordination is to be achieved between different legal services and also between legal and non-legal services.



Future research


While the present study has provided answers to some questions regarding the legal needs and access to justice issues of disadvantaged communities in NSW, it has also highlighted a number of areas that would benefit from future empirically-based research or evaluation. As detailed below, future investigation would be valuable both in further clarifying the legal needs of different sociodemographic groups, and in providing further guidelines for enhancing legal service provision.

Future research on legal needs

The present study identified the particular legal needs of some disadvantaged sociodemographic groups such as people with a chronic illness or disability, and Indigenous Australians. Future studies could usefully identify the legal issues that have particular importance for other demographic groups, such as the young, the homeless and those in institutions.6 Furthermore, the present group of people with a chronic illness or disability included people with a diverse range of conditions, including mental health problems, intellectual and learning disabilities, sensory disabilities, and chronic physical conditions. It would be worthwhile for future research to clarify whether the different sub-groups within this broad group experience similar or unique legal needs.

The present study found relatively low rates of reported legal needs for older people, people born in a non-English speaking country, people with low income and people with low levels of education, despite the fact that these groups are typically considered to be disadvantaged groups who have special legal needs (e.g. ABS 2003b; Australian Law Reform Commission 1992; Ellison et al. 2004; Tilse et al. 2002; Urbis Keys Young 2002; Women’s Legal Resources Centre 1994; Worthington et al. 2001). A question for future research is whether these lower reporting rates truly reflect lower incidence rates rather than merely a greater inability or reluctance to identify legal needs.

The present study compared the sociodemographic characteristics of individuals who did not experience legal issues with those who did. Future studies could complement this work by identifying the sociodemographic profiles of those who experience multiple legal issues.7 For example, how do these individuals differ from individuals who do not experience legal issues and how do they differ from those who only experience one legal issue? There may be important differences in the nature and patterns of legal incidents amongst those reporting multiple events and those reporting only one. Future studies could also examine the sociodemographic profiles of those who experience serious legal issues rather than more trivial legal issues.8

Some types of legal issues were found to cluster together. Where individuals do experience multiple legal issues, it would be valuable to identify the issues that act as trigger events and to determine the value of resolving these issues quickly.

A third of the present sample reported no legal needs within the one-year reference period. Future studies could usefully investigate possible ‘protective’ factors that make people more resilient to legal problems, and how such protective factors could be promoted across the community at large or across vulnerable communities in particular.

As noted in the introduction, the study of legal needs has largely been isolated from the study of the broader array of human needs that drive consumer decision-making and related behaviour. The forces affecting the emergence of human needs and wants and their ultimate satisfaction are well charted in other disciplines and guide much of the literature on consumer behaviour, consumer satisfaction, services marketing and communications theory (e.g. Hanna 1980; Maslow 1970; Sheth et al. 1999). This literature is seeing increasing application to service provision in areas such as health services, other government services, higher education and the arts. Studying legal needs within this broader context has the potential to deepen our understanding of legal needs and legal service provision.

Finally, the importance of repeated survey assessments of legal needs to identify trends in the incidence and pattern of legal needs cannot be overstated. It cannot be assumed that the incidence, nature and pattern of legal needs across the population and within particular population groups will remain static. Changes to the profile of legal needs may well occur with changes in the demographic profile and life circumstances of the population, changes to the law and changes to the system of legal service delivery. Regular assessment of legal needs is necessary to inform the ongoing updating and prioritisation of legal service provision. Regular assessment of legal needs would also enable projections of service use by the population and by different population sub-groups. For example, is the lower reported rate of legal needs by older people a new phenomenon? If it is, what does this say about the future of legal service delivery given the demographic shift to an older Australia? Are we heading towards a less demanding period for the types of legal services accessed by older people, or is any such trend offset by increased service demands by other sociodemographic groups?

Future research on legal service provision

It was found that people were less likely to seek legal help for some types of legal issues, particularly consumer and human rights issues. Future research in NSW and in Australia could gainfully explore whether this tendency reflects low demand or inadequate supply of services. For example, to what extent is failing to seek help a function of the lack of seriousness of an issue rather than a function of the existing services being inadequate or a function of the existing services being inaccurately perceived as inadequate? These three possibilities would have different implications for service provision. The first would not indicate a need for changes to service provision, while the second would indicate updating service provision and the third would suggest information strategies to correct inaccurate perceptions of services.

As noted earlier, it would be beneficial for future research to examine the reasons behind the increased tendency of Indigenous Australians to ignore their legal problems. For instance, to what extent is this tendency driven by cultural factors or the disabling effect of multiple disadvantage? Similarly, future research could examine the reasons why younger people, older people and people with low levels of education were less likely to seek help for their legal problems.

The current study demonstrated that some people were able to deal with their legal issues on their own while others had increased difficulty in resolving their legal issues. In particular, people with a chronic illness or disability had lower resolution rates. It would be valuable for future studies to determine the reasons behind these lower resolution rates. What are the particular barriers these people experience in accessing justice and at what point within the legal resolution process are these barriers experienced?

In addition, future research could also identify the factors that make people successfully self-reliant in dealing with some or all of their legal problems. What are the characteristics of the individuals for whom self-help strategies or unbundled service provision would be particularly appropriate? Can we better foster self-reliance?

The present study also highlighted the value of measuring expectations about the outcome of legal issues when evaluating the adequacy of legal service provision. Inappropriate expectations about the outcome of a legal issue may not only lower the satisfaction with the legal advice received for that issue, but may also inhibit people from seeking advice in the future.

Another useful exercise would be to compare survey data measuring legal needs with data on the use of legal services. Survey data provide a picture of latent legal need, including legal need that remains unaddressed, whereas service use data provide a picture of legal service provision. A comparison between the two has the potential to enhance our understanding of the extent to which the pattern of legal service provision mirrors the pattern of legal needs. It may throw light on whether there are gaps in service provision for certain types of legal problems, for certain demographic groups or in certain geographic areas. For example, is the high level of legal need among people with a chronic illness or disability appropriately reflected in the use of legal services? Does the low rate of usage of certain types of legal services reflect a low level of need or a limited availability of such services?

In addition, survey data could be used to identify the pathways that people use to resolve their legal issues. For example, which advisers do individuals tend to consult first, and what route is taken from one adviser to the next? How efficient is the referral between advisers?

The value of regular surveys to examine trends in the incidence and pattern of legal needs was advocated above. Recurrent surveys could also be used to monitor trends in help-seeking behaviour, in satisfaction with legal information, advice and assistance services, in resolution of legal issues, and in satisfaction with outcomes. Such trends would throw some light on how well legal services are meeting demands, and the success of any new services or changes to service delivery.

Finally, it is important to stress the benefit of rigorous, evidence-based testing and evaluation of new and existing legal service initiatives. A quality approach to legal service provision requires evaluation of the outcomes achieved as well as systematic investigation of how to achieve the most effective outcomes. For example, the present report has highlighted the potential benefit of targeted legal education and information strategies. Having identified this need, communication effectiveness studies could be used to indicate the best mechanism for specific education and information strategies to reach the target audience, and evaluation studies could be used to confirm the success of such strategies in effectively reaching their audience.

The present report also highlighted the potential benefit of various changes to the provision of legal information, advice and assistance. Suggested changes include using non-legal professionals as more formal gateways to legal services, and improving the coordination among legal services and between legal and human services. The usefulness of evaluating the efficiency, effectiveness and long-term cost-benefit of any such changes to legal services cannot be overemphasised. Such evaluation is critical in informing the ongoing improvement of legal service provision.



Conclusions


The present study is the first in about three decades to assess a broad range of legal needs in NSW. The findings suggest a high incidence of civil, criminal and family legal needs in the six disadvantaged areas of NSW that were surveyed. Legal needs affect many aspects of people’s lives and relate broadly to the promotion of justice, as well as to the promotion of social and physical well-being. However, some people have multiple, complex legal needs, while others are more resilient. People choose different means of handling their legal issues, and some people are less successful than others in resolving their problems. This diversity in experience is better suited to a multidimensional rather than a single, broad-brush approach to accessing justice in the disadvantaged areas surveyed.

Such a multidimensional approach would not simply react to legal problems unilaterally. It would also include tailored and proactive strategies to meet the varying needs of different individuals, to maximise prevention and early intervention, and to enhance the optimal utilisation of the legal system through the appropriate targeting of limited resources. The results suggest that useful strategies for promoting justice would include:


To ensure that legal services can react quickly and effectively to legal problems, the present findings suggest that improvements could be made to the accessibility of legal services, such as additional staffing, extension of opening hours, and additional legal services in rural and remote areas.

The widespread use of friends and family as advisers when legal issues arise indicates the merit of raising the general level of legal literacy among the community at large. The substantial proportion of people who simply ignore their legal needs also suggests a clear role for proactive information and education strategies in mobilising and empowering people to resolve legal problems. Such information and education strategies could usefully enhance general knowledge about:


It was noted that widespread advertising and dissemination of the telephone number for LawAccess NSW, which acts as a legal triage service in NSW, has the potential to provide a simple and effective gateway to legal resolution.

The present findings also suggest the particular benefit of tailoring and targeting legal information and education strategies to the sociodemographic groups who were relatively less likely to seek help for their legal issues, namely young people, older people, Indigenous Australians and people with a low level of education.

The current study also indicates the potential benefit of tailoring legal information, advice and assistance services to meet the particular legal needs of different individuals and sociodemographic groups. Some people have few legal needs and are easily able to handle their problems alone, suggesting that self-help and unbundled legal services may be appropriate in some cases.

However, other people, such as those with a chronic illness or disability, have multiple legal problems and reduced ability to achieve satisfactory resolution. This finding suggests that meeting the legal needs of this group should be a top priority for legal information, advice and assistance services.

Indigenous people were also found to be a group that is vulnerable to certain legal problems, namely credit/debt, employment and family problems, and may benefit from special attention and appropriately tailored legal services.

In addition, given that different age groups tend to face different legal issues and tend to achieve different resolution rates, there may also be benefit in tailoring legal information, advice and assistance according to age.

The type of legal issue also needs to be taken into account when setting priorities for legal service provision. The type of legal issue experienced was shown to be a critical factor in whether individuals seek advice, whether they are satisfied with the help they receive, whether they achieve resolution, and whether they are satisfied with the outcome. In particular, legal services need to allocate time and resources appropriately to deal effectively with frequently occurring legal issues and legal issues that tend to be genuinely more difficult to resolve.

However, the present findings highlight the importance of reconciling the need to provide expert, specialised legal services tailored to different types of legal problems with the need to provide a more client-focused approach for clients with multiple legal needs. Legal problems frequently co-occur, and some people, such as some people with a chronic illness or disability, simultaneously face a number of intertwined but disparate legal problems, including criminal, civil and family law problems.

A structural feature of current legal service delivery in NSW is that different legal service providers tend to deal with different types of legal issues. As a result, individuals with multiple, disparate legal problems sometimes need to access a variety of legal services. Furthermore, these services tend to deal with discrete aspects of the individual’s legal problems without necessarily coordinating to address the complexity of the situation in a holistic fashion. The overlap between legal needs and other basic human needs associated with physical and social well-being also means that some individuals with complex problems require both legal and non-legal support services. Thus, the present results indicate the potential benefit of improved cooperation and coordination not only among different legal services, but also between legal services and other human services, for individuals with complex, multiple legal and non-legal problems.

The value of a more integrated approach to legal and non-legal service provision was also highlighted by the current widespread use of non-legal professionals for advice in relation to events with legal implications. There may be considerable benefits in establishing strategies that would enable non-legal professionals who are well placed to notice legal problems to be used as an effective gateway into available legal services. For example, non-legal professionals could be used to disseminate basic, up-to-date legal information resources and to provide appropriate referrals to legal service agencies.

In summary, a multidimensional approach to legal service provision, which includes a range of reactive, preventative and proactive strategies, would enable legal services to be more effectively tailored to meet the diverse needs and experiences of different individuals. Such an approach would require appropriate resourcing and quality assurance, and effective coordination by government.




1  Note that the potential effect of increasing awareness of legal rights and resolution strategies on the demand for legal service provision is discussed later in the section Coordinating service provision and managing demand.
2  Cited in Pleasence et al. (2004b).
3  Participants reported requiring special services such as medical/counselling assistance, home visits/special transport, financial assistance, help with complex information, wheelchair access, an interpreter, a place for children to play and access to an outreach service. They reported obtaining these special services in 71 per cent of events where they were required.
4  As already noted, the quota for the three non-English language groups in the Fairfield LGA was not fully achieved, and interviews were not offered in all non-English languages. Thus, there may have been a bias towards including in the sample people with a good command of English. Similarly, people who are easily embarrassed about legal problems are unlikely to have agreed to an interview. Also, given that many respondents sought help from family, friends and non-legal professionals, they would not have been required to pay legal fees. Finally, court resolution, which can be expensive, was very rare in the present sample.
5  For example, the Legal Aid Commission of NSW receives its income from the Commonwealth and NSW Governments, the Public Purpose Fund and client contributions (Legal Aid Commission of NSW 2004). LawAccess NSW is a state government initiative which also receives some Commonwealth Government funding to provide services on Commonwealth legal matters such as family law matters (http://www.lawaccess.nsw.gov.au). NSW CLCs are funded by a Commonwealth and state funding program, and various other sources (e.g. local government, private trusts, donations). The Legal Aid Commission of NSW administers funding programs for 30 NSW CLCs (http://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au).
6  While the present study included 15 to 17 year olds, these individuals were grouped together with individuals aged 18 to 24 years.
7  The present study identified that people with a chronic illness or disability had elevated risks of a wide range of legal events.
8  The present study did not measure the seriousness of all the legal events experienced.