Legal need surveys and justiciable problems
Legal need surveys, which explore justiciable (or everyday legal) problems are fundamental to understanding how people experience law and how services can respond to their needs.
Legal need surveys
Part of the PULS is a legal need survey – they have played an important role in access to justice policy around the world, including in Australia.
Legal needs surveys investigate the experience of justiciable problems from the perspective of those who face them, rather than the professions and institutions that may play a role in their resolution. This approach is often referred to as ‘bottom up’ which is increasingly evident in access to justice policy around the world.
Legal need surveys have a long history, dating back to the 1930s, and became increasingly popular after Professor Dame Hazel Genn’s Paths to Justice report. In Australia, the most important legal need survey has been the Law and Justice Foundation of New South Wales’ LAW Survey, conducted in 2008 and published in 2012.
Legal need surveys are now used to measure and monitor achievement against the UN Sustainable Development Goal 16.3.3 – part of their target to promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.
For a comprehensive guide to legal need surveys and access to justice see the recent OECD and Open Society Foundations report, written by Professor Pascoe Pleasence (who joins us on the PULS project), VLF Research Director Professor Nigel Balmer, and Peter Chapman. The report informed the legal need component in our PULS questionnaire.
Justiciable or everyday legal problems
The term ‘justiciable problem’ in the context of legal need surveys was coined by Professor Dame Hazel Genn during her Paths to Justice project. It is used to describe problems that raise legal issues, whether or not this is recognised by those facing them, and whether or not lawyers or legal processes are used to deal with them. In fact, the majority of everyday legal problems involve neither legal advice (for example, from lawyers) nor legal processes (for example, ending up in court).
If the evidence relied on is the number of people seeking legal advice or using legal systems, you will only see a fraction of the issues people face. This means policy and service decisions using this information will only address a fraction of community experience and need.