Why Legal Aid Reform Can’t Wait: What I’ve learned from 13 years at the front line By Jarrod Coburn, Chief Executive, Portia (Ebborn Law) After thirteen years running a law firm built entirely around legal aid, I can say this with confidence: legal aid is not a peripheral service, it is a load-bearing pillar of a functioning justice system. In 2012 then Minister of Justice Hon. Judith Collins KC led a radical overhaul of the family legal aid system. At the time there was concern from the profession, particularly around the introduction of an out-of-court dispute resolution scheme. My firm was as concerned as any other, but we also accepted the wero and actively promoted the new world order. It was, in hindsight, a very astute reform. However, successive Governments have chosen to ignore this leap forward and allow the system to become decrepit through a lack of investment – both at the administrative end and in terms of contractual compensation. However, this is not a rant about lack of funding! While it is not a surprise that very few people consider lawyers deserving of more money (a tragedy for those who sacrifice big bucks to focus on delivering services to the most in need), enough has been said in that sphere by interlocutors more learned and prominent than myself. I want to talk about the future, about improvement, and about transforming what we have into a world-class legal aid system. Earlier this year, Portia (Ebborn Law) made a submission to the Ministry of Justice’s Triennial Review of Legal Aid. We did so not as arm-chair commentators, but as practitioners who have grown up entirely inside the post-2011 legal aid environment — designing systems, training lawyers, and delivering services at scale under fixed fees. Our submission is detailed, technical, and unapologetically frank. But the core message is simple: the New Zealand legal aid system desperately needs structural reform: think of it like the Cook Strait ferry Aratere when propulsion failed and caused it to drift aimlessly in rough seas. We need to fix the ship in the interim, but pretty soon we need to get a brand new one. Legal aid is not charity — it is infrastructure Legal aid exists to ensure that justice is not rationed by wealth. That principle is embedded in international human rights instruments, our own Bill of Rights, and more than a century of New Zealand legal history. Yet in practice, we have allowed the system that delivers this promise to slowly erode. Fixed fees for family legal aid were introduced in 2012. Since then, general inflation has risen by over a third, and wage costs by considerably more. The result? Legal aid providers are quietly subsidising the state. Not metaphorically but literally, through unpaid labour, deferred investment, and staff burnout. No other essential public service is expected to operate indefinitely under pricing frozen in time. The real risk: losing the next generation One of the least visible consequences of this erosion is its impact on junior lawyers. Our firm has trained more than 40 legal aid lawyers from graduate level. Many go on to become excellent litigators, some Lawyers for the Child, and some leaders in the profession. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: we train them, and the system pushes them out. Low pay relative to peers, high emotional load, and administrative friction mean that by the time a young lawyer becomes economically viable, they are often recruited away, or simply exhausted. This isn’t a recruitment problem: it’s a retention problem – one the market will not fix unless the underlying settings change. Administration is not neutral — it has a cost Legal aid administration is often discussed as an inconvenience. In reality, it is a material economic factor. The current system assumes a 1990s model of legal practice: one lawyer, one file, one desk. Modern firms operate in teams, supported by trained non-lawyer staff and technology. Yet legal aid contracts, audit processes, and approval pathways remain stubbornly individualised. The irony is that firms like ours have invested heavily in systems that reduce errors, speed up delivery, and protect client data. A higher-trust, firm-based contracting model would reduce duplication, lower Ministry overheads, and free lawyers to focus on actual legal work. Value for money requires trust, not just control Taxpayers deserve value for money, but that doesn’t mean driving prices down until providers break. It means designing a system that rewards efficiency, quality, and innovation. Bulk or high-trust funding models, CPI-indexed fees, and firm-level accountability are not radical ideas. They are standard procurement tools used across government. Applied properly, they would stabilise supply, reduce churn, and ultimately cost less to administer. Why we spoke up We made this submission because we still believe in legal aid, but it needs to be treated as essential civic infrastructure. We believe it can be fair to clients, sustainable for providers, and efficient for the state. Portia was built on the idea that access to justice should not depend on geography, income, or luck. We’ve proven that with the right systems, legal aid can be delivered at scale and with integrity. What we cannot do is continue to absorb the economic shocks of a system that has been allowed to drift. Reform is not about asking for special treatment. It’s about realism. If we want a justice system that works for everyone, we need a legal aid system that can endure, reward efficiency and promote innovation.
