![Clayton Utz partner David Hillard is a key driver in the corporate law world's push for more legal assistance funding.](/content/dam/images/g/j/z/7/6/6/image.related.afrArticleLead.620x350.guhmfq.png/1487855704358.jpg)
![](/web/20170223144533im_/http://www.afr.com/content/dam/images/1/4/4/7/5/9/image.imgtype.afrAuthorAvatar.120x120.png/1426319799964.png)
Corporate law firms. The Law Council of Australia. The Australian Bar Association. State-based law societies. Judges.
So reads the roll call of those who support a properly funded legal assistance sector. The sector's peak body, the National Association of Community Legal Centres (NCLC), is lobbying the government ahead of the May budget to invest at least $78 million in CLCs nationally over the next three years, to prevent them from turning away even more than the current figure of 160,000 people a year and ease the burden on an under-resourced court system.
Of course, we all operate on a budget and the Attorney-General's $3.5 billion department is no different.
Attorney-General George Brandis has met with sector representatives and visited legal assistance providers at least seven times in the past year. Other members of government who visited a handful of the nearly 200 providers include Senators Michaelia Cash and Marise Payne, and member for Moore, Ian Goodenough.
Moore Cash or Payne?
The question is (puns unfortunately intended, apologies), were they convinced the sector is good enough to receive more cash in avoidance of the pending pain from a funding dent come July 1?
An Attorney-General spokeswoman said the government supported the "important work of the legal assistance sector" and was "providing substantial funding to front-line services to help those who need it most", citing more than $1.6 billion going to the broader sector in the five years to 2020, plus $16.5 million directly to CLCs as part of the landmark and laudable $200 million package to address domestic violence.
The CLCs are grateful, but argue this does not avoid the funding cliff, when amounts under their five-year partnership agreement fall from around $40 million a year to $30 million. There is no sign of the extra $120 million a year the Productivity Commission determined was needed from the federal government, plus another $80 million from state and territory governments, to bolster the sector; $14.4 million of which would flow to CLCs. Then there is the niggling issue of getting federal and state governments to commit to working out a sustainable model for future funding.
Anyway. Why do corporate lawyers care about this?
Corporate firms cannot fill every gap
Well, here's how those bleeding-heart lefties at Clayton Utz – the same ones that promoted deputy Liberal party leader Julie Bishop to its partner ranks and defended British American Tobacco in the good old (cough) days (smoked out long ago, don't worry) – put it.
"Reduced community legal centre funding is a false economy – the costs of unresolved legal problems will shift to other areas of government spending such as health care, housing and child protection," says the firm's pro bono warrior partner David Hillard.
"The country's largest law firms have been on record many times in our concern about the reduction in the capacity of CLCs to assist low-income and disadvantaged clients. Pro bono work cannot fill the gaps.
"We cannot come close to meeting the level of unmet legal need which will be created by a reduction of CLC capacity."
Earlier this month, NSW Supreme Court chief justice Tom Bathurst called for adequate funding to "facilitate access to our legal system".
NCLC national spokesman Dan Stubbs acknowledged government support so far, and agreed it was not the sole responsibility of the federal arm – state and territory governments are inconsistent on funding too – but he implored the government to use the May budget to deliver a boost.
"When there is this level of concern about the funding cliff across the profession, it sends a strong message that the funding crisis facing CLCs will have a huge impact on our clients, but also on the broader legal profession and justice system, given our important preventative and early intervention work," he said.
Alternatively, they could submit to the government such spectacles as Rod Culleton representing himself before the nation's highest court, where the former senator sparred with then chief justice Robert French on whether they really must talk about the Constitution. As it was a constitutional matter that was a tad unavoidable.
Of course, there may be ways to cut costs to accommodate a boost to CLCs.
After delivering the Victoria Law Foundation Law Oration on February 10, his first speech since retiring as the nation's top judge, French was asked by an audience member whether it would be "a strengthening or a weakening of the rule of law if we only had a Solicitor-General and no Attorney-General".
To which the chief purveyor of dry wit could only reply: "I'm sure it'd be cheaper."
A more palatable approach might be innovation. Victoria Legal Aid has unveiled a new app, the work of Code for Australia technologists funded by the state government teaming up with the lawyers to come up with a tool to match people with a legal service. It is expected to save the legal aid office up to 30 hours a week, funnelling callers through the app rather than a call.
Another innovator shifting into the civic sphere is LexisNexis, which launched a free social justice tool this week. It includes a topic on access to justice. Ping.
Cuts for cancer
Lobbying efforts to halt the funding cliff have succeeded in the past, so there is some hope for CLCs yet.
Otherwise, God help them.
God or, perhaps, Jesus Barrister, as Sydney junior counsel Daniel Roff is known around Phillip Street. Paddlepop Lion is another nickname. Both help describe how follically blessed Mr Roff is.
He will shave his hair and beard on April 1, to raise money for the Australian Cancer Research Foundation. While worried about the result given "winter is coming", he is eager to boost funds in the fight against a disease that has taken the lives of beloved relatives and threatens to harm friends.
"It may mean when I ask, 'Would your Honour mind if I turned my back to get some instructions?', I no longer get the response, 'Quite frankly, if you put your glasses on the back of your head I wouldn't even have known you'd turned around'," he quipped.
Never say our lawyers lack heart or humour.
katie.walsh@fairfaxmedia.com.au