Law Society hindrance seen

Press, 18 March 1982, Page 17

Law Society hindrance seen

Parliamentary reporter

The Law Society might be able to hinder the establishment and work of community legal-advice bureaux under the Law Practitioners Bill, according to representatives of the bureaux. In submissions on the bill to Parliament’s Statutes Revision Committee, they said that it would be over to the society to rule whether a legal-advice office was needed. This decision should hinge on a vaguely defined criterion. "unmet legal need.” If this need existed in the view of the society, a community law office would be permitted. However, unmet legal needs could exist that might not be perceived by the society because it measured them as a demand for the services of a lawyer. Needs might not be expressed that far, Instead of the promoters of bureaux having to prove the existence of unmet legal needs, the society should have to prove that there was no unmet legal need before refusing the establishment of a bureau. The society would probably want to impose conditions on bureaux to direct fee-generating work to traditional private practitioners. The representatives said that the bureaux should have the right to do such work,

even if only to become selffinancing. this was particularly important in that Government support for the bureaux was unlikely in the near future and in that the society was empowered to assist financially, only those bureaux run by members of the legal profession. The representatives objected to a right of review to the High Court of any of the society’s decisions. They asked instead for a right of direct appeal. The Wellington Community Law Centre said that the bill was “a huge act of faith in the Law Society.” The bill would give the society powerful rights to control the establishment and running of law centres without giving it any duties or obligations to fulfil in providing community legal services.