The Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee tabled its report into Legal Aid and Access to Justice in Federal Parliament on 8 June 2024 ('the Report'). A minority report by the Government Senators on the Committee was also tabled. The inquiry, which held five public hearings and received over 115 submissions, investigated the capacity of the current legal aid system to meet the needs of Australians for legal assistance. This investigation included an examination of pro bono legal service delivery in Australia.

PILCH made a submission to the Committee in September 2003. Four PILCH member firms, Blake Dawson Waldron, Clayton Utz, Freehills and Minter Ellison, also made submissions. As reported in the April 2004 edition of PILCH Matters, the submissions drew attention to some of the major gaps in the delivery of legal services to needy individuals in Australia, as well as to some of the barriers to carrying out pro bono work. Specifically, the PILCH submission concluded that while pro bono legal assistance is a valuable means of assisting clients who may otherwise go without legal advice and representation, the pro bono efforts of the private profession are no substitute for proper government funding of legal aid and community legal centres ('CLCs').

The Report dedicates a chapter to the discussion of Pro Bono Legal Services and acknowledges that over the past five years the provision of pro bono legal services has been transformed from 'fractured and unstructured services ... to services that are coordinated between community centres and law firms and performed by lawyers in structured in-house pro bono programs'. Over the last four years, PILCH has worked hard to streamline the facilitation of pro bono legal services in Victoria by jointly administering the Victorian Bar Legal Assistance Scheme and the Law Institute of Victoria Legal Assistance Scheme from its office.

The key comments and recommendations from the Report in relation to pro bono are:

·         There is a lack of comprehensive and reliable data on the types of matters in which pro bono legal assistance is sought, the type of clients, the source of the referral and the approximate cost in market rates of the assistance provided. Recommendation 48 is that the Federal Government provide additional funding to the National Pro Bono Resource Centre ('NPBRC') to record and report statistics on pro bono service provision.

·         The Commonwealth Government should commit ongoing funding to the NPBRC beyond 2006: recommendation 49. PILCH hopes that the Government will adopt recommendation 49, given the important role the NPBRC plays in encouraging and supporting law firms, CLCs, pro bono referral schemes and legal aid commissions.

·         Pro bono is not a substitute for an adequately funded legal aid system nor a panacea for overcoming gaps in other publicly funded legal services.

·         The exposure of law students to pro bono work is an invaluable way of establishing a strong foundation of social responsibility and engendering their commitment to future pro bono work.

·         The Commonwealth Government should issue binding directions to Commonwealth government agencies that the fact that a law firm acts pro bono against government should not be taken into account to the detriment of the law firm in the procuring of government legal services: recommendation 51.

·         More should be done to encourage other professions, such as doctors and psychologists, to provide pro bono services where necessary to pursue the rights of disadvantaged people.

The Committee's Report is available at www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/legalaidjustice/report/contents.htm.