Legal Aid Review: NZBA Urges
Reform to Protect Access to Justice

This article was written with the assistance of AI.*

The New Zealand Bar Association | Ngā Ahorangi Motuhake o Te Ture (NZBA) recently submitted its feedback on the Ministry of Justice’s Triennial Legal Aid Review, reaffirming its strong support for legal aid as a cornerstone of access to justice and the rule of law. The submission responded to the Review's Discussion Document, which outlined proposals to improve the efficiency, sustainability, and accessibility of the legal aid system.

Legal aid ensures that all New Zealanders - regardless of financial means - can access quality legal advice and effective representation. It is a critical safeguard in our justice system, particularly for vulnerable individuals and communities. Without it, the right to a fair hearing becomes inaccessible for many, and the integrity of our legal system is compromised.

A System Under Pressure

In its submission, NZBA highlighted the growing pressures on the legal aid system. These include:

• Unsustainable workloads for legal aid providers.
• Inadequate remuneration that fails to reflect the complexity and time demands of legal aid work.
• Administrative burdens that consume significant unpaid time.
• Delays in court processes, often caused by systemic inefficiencies and under-resourcing.
• Rising case complexity, particularly in criminal and civil litigation.

These challenges are not isolated - they are deeply interconnected. For example, delays in disclosure or court scheduling increase the time and cost of legal aid cases, while low remuneration discourages experienced lawyers from remaining in the system. The result is a shrinking pool of providers, particularly in complex or high-needs areas.

Access to Justice Must Be the Priority

NZBA’s submission emphasised that access to justice must remain the central focus of any reform. Legal aid is not a discretionary service - it is a constitutional necessity. The right to legal representation is enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and underpins the fairness of our entire legal system.

To that end, NZBA urged the Ministry of Justice to:

• Improve the sustainability of legal aid provision.
• Ensure fair and timely compensation for providers.
• Reduce administrative burdens.
  Invest in digital tools to streamline processes.
• Consult further on any detailed proposals before implementation.

Bulk Funding: A Risk to Quality and Independence

One of the most significant proposals in the Discussion Document is the potential introduction of bulk funding for legal aid services. NZBA has expressed strong opposition to this model, particularly in the context of New Zealand’s legal profession.

Bulk funding involves allocating a fixed sum to a firm or organisation to deliver a set volume of legal aid services. While this may offer cost certainty and administrative simplicity in theory, NZBA has identified several serious risks:

1. Exclusion of Barristers and Small Firms
   New Zealand’s legal aid system relies heavily on independent barristers and small firms. Many of these providers operate without the administrative infrastructure required to manage bulk funding contracts. Unlike jurisdictions such as England and Wales, New Zealand does not have a “split profession” with clerks managing workflow in barristers’ chambers. As a result, bulk funding would inherently favour large firms and exclude many experienced providers.
   
   
2. Reduced Quality and Training Opportunities
   Bulk funding models often incentivise volume over quality. There is a risk that high-volume, low-cost work will be prioritised, leading to a decline in the standard of representation. Moreover, if bulk funding is concentrated in a small number of large firms, junior lawyers outside those firms may lose opportunities for training and mentorship in legal aid work.
   
   
3. Loss of Client Choice and Independence
   Currently, legal aid clients can choose their preferred provider, particularly in serious criminal matters. This promotes trust, continuity, and better outcomes. Under a bulk funding model, clients may be assigned a lawyer based on availability rather than suitability, undermining the principle of client autonomy.
   
   
4. Lessons from Overseas
   NZBA’s submission draws on international experience, particularly from the United Kingdom. The UK’s Criminal Legal Aid (CLA) scheme has faced widespread criticism, including industrial action by barristers and a significant decline in the number of legal aid providers. A 2020 review found that the scheme had led to unsustainable profit margins, reduced quality, and a 25% drop in criminal legal aid firms over a decade.

A Better Path Forward

Rather than adopting bulk funding, NZBA recommends targeted reforms that strengthen the existing system. 

These include:

• Increasing fixed fees and hourly rates to reflect the true cost of legal aid work.
• Introducing a fourth experience tier to retain senior practitioners.
• Streamlining administrative processes, including faster payment of invoices and simplified ATG            (Amendment to Grant) applications.
• Investing in digital tools to support triage, client matching, and form preparation.
• Improving support for junior counsel, including funded mentorship and clearer pathways to higher classification levels.

These changes would help retain experienced providers, attract new talent, and ensure that legal aid remains a viable and respected area of practice.

The Importance of Remuneration

The NZBA submission placed strong emphasis on the importance of remuneration for legal aid providers. It argued that current legal aid rates are too low and have not kept pace with inflation or the rising costs of legal practice. NZBA highlighted that inadequate remuneration is a key factor driving experienced lawyers away from legal aid work, particularly in complex criminal and civil cases.

The submission recommended increasing hourly rates and fixed fees to reflect the actual time and expertise required and introducing a fourth experience tier to fairly compensate senior practitioners, including King’s Counsel. It also called for compensation for administrative work, such as preparing Amendment to Grant (ATG) applications, which currently goes unpaid despite being essential. NZBA urged alignment of legal aid rates more closely with Crown counsel rates, especially for high-level criminal and appellate work.

Additionally, NZBA referenced the Court of Appeal’s decision in Legal Services Commissioner v Fawcett [2025] NZCA 63, which affirmed that time spent preparing ATGs should be remunerated. The submission urged Legal Aid Services to implement this ruling systematically.

The Economics of Legal Aid

According to a 2025 report commissioned by the New Zealand Law Society and prepared by Deloitte Access Economics, legal aid delivers strong economic returns, with every dollar invested generating at least $2.06 in benefits to the economy. These include improved court efficiency, reduced delays, and better outcomes for individuals, which collectively contribute to an estimated $2.2 billion in net present value GDP over five years. The findings reinforce that legal aid is not only a legal and social imperative but also a fiscally responsible investment in New Zealand’s justice system and broader economic wellbeing.

Conclusion

The Triennial Legal Aid Review presents a critical opportunity to strengthen one of the most important pillars of our justice system. NZBA’s submission calls for reforms that are practical, principled, and focused on long-term sustainability.

Legal aid must remain accessible, high-quality, and independent. It must be supported by a system that values the work of its providers and recognises the essential role they play in upholding the rule of law.

As the Ministry of Justice considers its next steps, NZBA stands ready to engage further and work collaboratively to ensure that legal aid reform delivers on its promise: justice for all, not just for those who can afford it.

The Bar Association thanks the writers of our submission, who were Alison Douglass, Ben Snedden, Devon Kemp, Ella Tait, Helen Radinovich, John Mather, Katie Lane, Marie Taylor-Cyphers, and Nick Williams.

*Microsoft Copilot was used to reference sources, analyse material, query some of the details and draft the article from an outline provided by a human author.