But the dean of law at Otago University, Prof Mark Henaghan, says he sees the revamp as a good thing generally, as long as it does not create disincentives for people to seek legal help.
Justice Minister Simon Power yesterday revealed proposals to reduce legal aid costs by $138 million over four years.
The changes, to be introduced to Parliament by mid-year, include introducing a $100 user fee, charging interest on debt, tightening the eligibility criteria, and having the state-owned Public Defence Service (PDS) - which will in time move in to Dunedin as well - take up 50% of criminal cases.
Barrister John Anderson, from the Criminal Bar Association, said the group was appalled at the changes.
The Government was nationalising a profession and creating a public monopoly of criminal defence lawyers by expanding the PDS. The change would also mean more people could not choose their own lawyer.
But Mr Power said the changes were designed to target areas which do not necessarily require legal representation and groups with relatively higher incomes.
Legal aid spending had increased by 55% in the past three years, from $111 million to $172 million.
"That growth is forecast to result in a $402 million gap between forecast and baseline legal aid expenditure over five years."
Mr Anderson said PDS would cost taxpayers more money.
"In 2010, the PDS cost $1612 per criminal legal aid case, whereas lawyers as a whole cost $1343 per case.
"When it is rolled out to smaller centres and does more complex cases, its costs per case will increase even more."
Law Society president Jonathan Temm said the changes would affect the quality of service when tight fiscal restraints resulted in hiring inexperienced and overworked lawyers.
"We are very concerned about the new direction that has been taken in legal aid. We don't believe the forecasted savings are certain and we don't actually accept that the forecasted costs which drive these changes are certain, either."
However, Prof Henaghan said a PDS was a good thing for the public because it meant lawyers would become specialised in the area. The PDS appeared to be working well in the North Island so far, he said.
A system that encouraged more minor cases in the Family Court to be resolved without resorting to court action was a good one, and he saw no problem with another of the proposals - setting an up-front price for services in high-cost cases.
"There's no harm in focusing people's minds. I think the public would be pleased to see efficiency in a public service."
His main concern was that increased eligibility thresholds and interest on repayments did not act as disincentives to people taking legal action, especially in Family Court cases.
There was no tendency in New Zealand for courts to award costs, so if one party could afford a lawyer there was the potential they could drag a case out in the hope the other person, conscious of increasing legal aid bills, would give up.
"... that is my one concern because that goes to the heart of justice for all."
He expected there would be some outcry from some lawyers to the proposed changes, but they would adjust to the changes: "They always do."
Labour leader Phil Goff was concerned the proposed changes would mean low-income people would not have access to lawyers.
"It means for a single person ... they have to earn $100 less than the minimum wage. That means almost every low income person would be excluded."
But Mr Power said the proposed changes would balance cost reduction against access to justice.
"I must make it very clear that where vulnerable parties have been harmed or are at risk of being harmed, the State will provide legal means to secure protection.
"But legal aid was never intended to be used to decide how many weeks a child spends on an overseas holiday, or to determine petrol costs associated with taking a child to school."
There would still be a $243 million gap in legal aid funding over four years, despite the changes.
Law Society South Island vice-president Anne Stevens, and the president of the society's Otago branch, Alastair Logan, said they had not had a chance to absorb the proposals.
Mrs Stevens said Dunedin lawyers and their clients were already "battered and bruised" by the recent removal of the preferred lawyer system for legal aid for people accused of lower level crimes.
"There's so much going on we can't digest it all." She also questioned how the Legal Services Agency would cope with new changes when six months after the rotational allocation system was introduced, there were still major administrative issues that were costing extra legal aid dollars, for example the allocation of several lawyers to one person.
Legal aid
-Users pay $100 up front for service and interest on debt.
Public Defence Service to take up to 50% of criminal legal aid cases in Auckland, Hamilton and Wellington from October; to expand, over time, to Tauranga, Hastings, Dunedin and Christchurch.
Tighten the eligibility criteria. Only available to single people on less than $22,000 a year and people, with children, on less than $50,000 a year. There is no threshold at present.
Ineligible people could apply, but would have to prove their case was likely to be expensive and they were genuinely unable to pay for a lawyer.
Tighten merits test for family and civil cases, which would focus on the prospects of success of the case.
Introduce fixed fees for cases that have standard cost structures, including criminal summary cases, most family cases, and some civil cases.
In high-cost cases - the most expensive 1% of cases accounted for 26% of expenditure in 2008-09 - a price for services would have to be agreed on first.
- Additional reporting by NZPA
