Change resistant?

We don’t really know what works – what makes a difference to people in their hour of legal need. We have an ecosystem and a culture which preferences some law over others, some people over others, so maybe we don’t want to know?

By
Lynne Haultain
28 April 2026
White cubes with red and blue arrows pointing in opposite directions. Resistance to change, conflicting directions, stubbornness concept.

Last time we spoke I set out my thinking on the challenge of reforming the law – making it more responsive to the people whose law it is.

This time, I want to take that a step further and talk about what gets in the way – why is it so hard to make the changes we strongly suspect are needed?

Firstly, we can’t fix what we don’t know. There’s significant research but there are also massive blind spots – many of which are key to any systemic understanding. We do know there’s massive civil legal need – 6.4 million problems in Victoria according to the Public Understanding of Law Survey - and much of that unmet, even when people get to lawyers, courts or dispute resolution services. What we don’t have a clear view of is how the moving parts of the justice system interact – or don’t - and what that means for the people who use it.

We don’t really know what works – what makes a difference to people in their hour of legal need. And yet, with all due regard to those involved, we continue to develop service responses and tech supports without clear evidence, which we shovel into that gaping maw of need in the hope it will help. It does help – but how many and to achieve what?

We don’t know how much legal support is enough. Do factsheets and online guides make a difference? What difference does 15 minutes of legal advice make as opposed to 20? These might sound like small beer, but unlocking the consequences of ‘light/er touch’ support could have a profound impact on the way we design services – providing lower-level interventions for people who can use them and freeing up resources for those with more complex needs. See our new Measure for Measure report for more on this!

We don’t have a longitudinal view of the effects on systems or users. To use an illustration – if Victoria were to reduce fines for public transport and traffic offences how would we know what difference that made before and after? It would cut income to the government and save Victorians money, but beyond that, what impact might it have on people and their legal problems, and the adverse escalations like rental defaults, stress levels or family breakdown?

We’ve had two legal needs surveys in the state in around 20 years – too long between drinks to see trends or assess the impact of policy change. The VLF has been calling for a longitudinal approach to legal needs research (and now capability) for many years, as did Dr Warren Mundy in his report on the legal assistance partnership in 2024. Building a modular survey which holds key questions over time and can add and subtract others is not all that hard.

So why then don’t we have data? Is there an inbuilt resistance to finding out? Or is it just a consequence of a fragmented system?

As I’ve remarked before, the disaggregation of the law is both a blessing and a curse. The upsides of that separation centre on independence and fairness – an impression of the incorruptibility of the system. For the most part this concept envisages courts and tribunals. We come before these institutions and they make determinations on the law and the merits of the case, not who we are or where we’ve come from. But this implies a level playing field - of legal capability and oftentimes representation, which we are well aware is increasingly not the case. In these circumstances, and for legal problems outside courts or tribunals, not taking account of the people’s circumstances is unfair in itself.

Maybe we don’t want to know? The system – such as it is – clearly suits some people just as it is. The way we educate people in the law, the way we carve up the work, the way we remunerate – it creates an ecosystem and a culture which preferences some areas of law over others, some people over others. The reverence for this way of doing business is baked in from day one in law school. I declined to practice law because from where I stood umpteen years ago it was so very far from justice.

As a wise friend said to me recently, resistance to change is really a reaction to an expectation of loss – real or perceived. A great deal has been achieved in understanding the experience of justice and to improve access, but there is still much to do on many fronts. I’m confident the changes they would prompt would result in vastly more gains than losses for all of us.

I look forward to that continuing effort from the very many fair minded, smart people in our sector.

Go well

Lynne

Publications

Measure for Measure: A People-Centred Approach to Tailoring Justice
April 2026

Measure for Measure is foundational research that aimed to map and understand a range of justice initiatives from across Victoria. It is an effort to identify the common elements of success in responding to legal need and capability, and to discuss what that means for practice, evaluation, and better outcomes at a range of levels.

Report
The Public Understanding of Law Survey (PULS) Volume 1: Everyday Problems and Legal Need
August 2023

Explore how justiciable problems are experienced, what people do about them, and how they progress and conclude (if they conclude).

Report
No items found.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Keep up with the latest research, grants, resources, insights and events.
We take your privacy seriously and will only email you with occasional updates. More details can be found in our privacy statement.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

New research explores what works to meet people’s legal needs

Measure for Measure: A People‑Centred Approach to Tailoring Justice, provides an important snapshot and analysis of what works to move the needle in accessing and providing justice.