Your points about access to justice are well taken.
Not exact matches
He took the opportunity
to make some
pointed comments
about laywers having
to «pull together» during this time of significant challenges both and in the profession and the
justice system — not only in terms of
access to justice but in failing confidence of the public in their legal representatives.
From this vantage
point, we begin
to recognize that facilitating
access to justice is not
about making things better or easier for other people.
The association is concerned
about access to the
justice system,
pointing to struggles with long case delays and an overstretched legal aid system.
At the end of your response, you make the
point that ``... the law societies should be doing more
to support junior lawyers entering independent practice, which is the last remaining step from law school
to being able
to do something
about access to justice.»
The court also makes an important
point about the role of advocates in facilitating
access to justice:
Based on these and other data
points, I think we can draw at least this conclusion: from now on,
access to justice is going
to be less
about lawyers and more
about alternatives
to lawyers.
But what I can say is that is that if we have reached the
point that our
justice system is so broken that we have
to resort
to the incarceration of family litigants, based on the subjective assessment of a single
justice who has clearly formed strong opinions
about the culpability of the parties, we have a very big problem that should be alarming all
access to justice advocates.