For a review of many possible access to justice reforms see the Access to Justice Advisory Committee, ‘Access to Justice An Action Plan’, Attorney General's Department, Canberra, 1994. For a recent review of the literature examining the mechanisms designed to improve access to justice in Europe see GorielyT., Access to Legal Services: A European Comparison, A Review of the Literature, Scottish Executive/Law Society, London, 2000.
2.
Access to Justice Advisory Committee, above, ref 1, p.260.
3.
As Pfennigstorf notes, there are significant differences between the way that the European societies organise LEI to the ‘prepaid plans’ in the USA. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this article it is reasonable to refer to all the approaches as legal expenses insurance. See PfennigstorfW., ‘A Summary Review of American and European Approaches to Legal Protection Insurance’, in PfennigstorfW.SchwartzA. M., (eds), Legal Protection Insurance: American and European Approaches, American Bar Foundation, Chicago, 1986, p.1.
4.
The following summary draws on PfennigstorfSchwartz, (eds), above, ref 3 and The Law Foundation of New South Wales, Legal Expense Insurance: An Experiment in Access to Justice, Law Foundation of New South Wales, Sydney, 1999 available at <>. For a recent discussion of LEI in Europe and the implications for improving Access to Justice in Australia see CannonA., (2000) 9‘Legal Cost Insurance’, Journal of Judicial Administration223–46. The article includes a French LEI contract.
5.
The discussion in this section draws on ReganF., ‘Retreat from Equal Justice? Assessing the Recent Swedish Legal Aid and Family Law Reforms’, (2000) 19Civil Justice Quarterly168–84.
6.
The Swedish approach to risk protection for personal injury is compared to other societies, including New Zealand in OldertzC.TidefeltE., (eds) Compensation for Personal Injury in SWEDEN and Other Societies, Juristforlaget, Stockholm, 1988.
7.
See discussion in Regan, above, ref 5.
8.
This section draws on discussions of the German developments in a number of chapters in PfennigstorfSchwartz, (eds), above, ref 3, and KillianM, ‘Legal Aid and Access to Justice in Germany’, Paper to the International Legal Aid Group Conference, Melbourne, 13–16 June 2001.
9.
The fixed fee schedule and its consequences are described in some detail in LiepoldD., ‘Limiting Costs for Better Access to Justice: The German Experience’, in ZuckermanA.A.S.CranstonR., (eds), Reform of Civil Procedure: Essays on ‘Access to Justice’, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.
10.
LevenkampP., ‘Legal Aid in The Netherlands’, Paper to the International Legal Aid Group Conference, Melbourne, 13–16 June 2001.
11.
Law Foundation of New South Wales, above, ref 4, p.9.
12.
Law Foundation of New South Wales, above, ref 4, p.10.
13.
Law Foundation of New South Wales, above, ref 4, p.10.
14.
GrayA.RickmanN.‘The Role of Legal Expenses Insurance in Securing Access to the Legal Services Market’, in ZuckermanA.A.S.CranstonR., (eds), Reform of Civil Procedure: Essays on ‘Access to Justice’, Clarendon Press, 1995, p.312; also see the discussion in PraisV., ‘Legal Expenses Insurance’, in ZuckermanCranston (eds), above.
15.
GrayA.RickmanN., above, ref.14, p.314.
16.
GrayA.RickmanN., above, ref 14, estimate that 10 million are covered while the Law Foundation of New South Wales, above ref 4 refers to 17 million.
17.
GrayA.RickmanN., above, ref 14, p.315.
18.
The project is described in Law and Justice Foundation of NSW, above, ref 4.
19.
Law and Justice Foundation of NSW, above, ref 4, p.viii.
20.
Law and Justice Foundation of NSW, above, ref 4.
21.
Law and Justice Foundation of NSW, above, ref 4.
22.
The discussion in this section draws on the description in the Access to Justice Advisory Committee, above, ref 1, the PSA website, and correspondence from the PSA. The PSA website address is <http://www.cpsu.asn.au/sa/members.htm>.
23.
Access to Justice Advisory Committee, above, ref 1, pp.262–63.
