Legal-aid lawyers facing skills tests

Simon Power. Photo / Mark Mitchell

In what is believed to be a world first, lawyers will have to pass competency tests to work in the taxpayer-funded legal aid scheme - and could be suspended if not up to the job.

Justice Minister Simon Power announced the final changes to the legal aid system yesterday after the Government largely accepted the damning report by Dame Margaret Bazley.

Her review, released in December, claimed the justice process was being undermined by incompetent lawyers who were "gaming" the system to gain maximum fees from the Legal Services Agency, which last year paid $131 million.

Dame Margaret said lawyers would take top-up payments from clients who did not understand the service was free, and abuse the preferred-lawyer policy by taking backhanders for recommending particular lawyers.

Her review was criticised by defence lawyers who pointed out there was no concrete evidence to back up the accusations of corruption, which Dame Margaret conceded were based on anecdotal reports.

But Mr Power said the Bazley report identified system-wide failings and "pointed to the need to rebuild trust in our legal aid system".

"I was deeply concerned by the problems Dame Margaret found. They go to the very heart of the integrity of our legal system."

The idea of a competency test was raised by former High Court judge Sir John Hansen at Parliament, after he was appointed chairman of the Legal Aid Services board in the wake of Dame Margaret's report.

He told a parliamentary select committee in February that he had always been concerned about legal aid accreditation and that testing the skills of lawyers was a "priority".

"It might be a surprise to all of us, but I think this will be the first country in the world to introduce competency - rather than just years of experience - as one of the elements to qualify for legal aid," Sir John said.

A spokeswoman for Mr Power confirmed the Justice Ministry believed New Zealand was the first country to use a competency test as part of the process for lawyers to practise legal aid.

Other countries use competency tests when lawyers reapply after accreditation for legal aid lapses.

Mr Power also announced yesterday that the Public Defence Service would be expanded outside Greater Auckland to Hamilton, Wellington and Christchurch.

While the upfront costs were higher, the minister said the service - where salaried lawyers in one office take on defence work - would be cheaper over time and encourage competition.

Mr Power said changes would be made to streamline legal aid grants to cut the time lawyers and clients spent tied up with administration.

Shorter application forms would be used for the less-serious criminal charges, or summary charges, which account for 90 per cent of applications.

He hinted at tightening the preferred-lawyer policy - where clients can choose a legal practitioner - and changes to the duty solicitor scheme at district court level.

There will be no changes to legal aid funding for Treaty claims, but there will be changes to administration to prevent duplication of funding.

Barrister John Anderson, of the Criminal Bar Association, said he believed Mr Power's announcements yesterday were "reasonably sensible".

He said most defence counsel would not have a problem with competency tests, and cracking down on the quality of lawyers would be an "easy matter to address".

He agreed with cutting the red tape of administration as "most clients are clearly going to be granted legal aid and you have to fill out a lengthy form that is unnecessarily complicated".

But Mr Anderson took issue with Mr Power's assertion that the Public Defence Service was cheaper to run than private practice.

"We dispute that it's any cheaper. PDS is okay in terms of quality but it doesn't attract the best lawyers because the pay is so low."

GETTING VALUE FOR TAXPAYERS' MONEY

The changes to the legal aid system include:

* Making legal aid lawyers prove competency before approval.
* Lawyers will have to reapply every three years.
* Legal aid approved for specific cases or time periods only.
* Lawyers to be monitored by in-court observation, client feedback and peer review.
* Performance Review Committee to impose swifter sanctions, such as suspension from legal aid practice.