Speaking to Lawyers Weekly, Katrina Favre, principal lawyer at KF Lawyers; Amanda Elias, principal solicitor at Greenleaf Legal; and Alana Jacquet, managing partner at Our Lawyers, highlighted the significant shortcomings in the legal system’s ability to adequately support victim-survivors of family violence. They also underscored the need for targeted reforms within government and legal institutions to equip legal professionals better to deliver adequate support to those facing these complex and challenging circumstances.

Are legal services adequately equipped?

Katrina Favre asserts that legal professionals are not yet adequately equipped to effectively support victim-survivors, noting that this may be the case as “it has only been in recent years that the various forms of family violence and abuse has been brought to the public’s attention”.

She highlighted that a critical shortfall in legal services in supporting victim-survivors is their lack of understanding of the “triggers for traumatic symptoms”.

VIEW ALL

Amanda Elias echoed these concerns, identifying that four critical gaps in legal services include “awareness of services, accessibility, trauma-informed approaches, and resource availability”.

She emphasised that while legal aid services and community legal centres play a crucial role, they are often “underfunded and overstretched”, leading to delays that can further exacerbate survivors’ trauma.

Additionally, although lawyers are required to complete 10 hours of continuing professional development annually, Elias pointed out that “victim support training is not mandatory”. This means that lawyers who encounter clients experiencing trauma may not have “the necessary skills to support them appropriately”.

For Elias, a critical concern she withholds about legal services is that the needs of male survivors are often severely overlooked.

“From my experience as a family lawyer, what I have found most concerning is the lack of services and awareness addressing the needs of male survivors, who often face stigma and encounter limited tailored support and resources,” Elias said.

Alana Jacquet expressed the need for enhanced training among lawyers in handling clients who have experienced trauma, ensuring that trauma is not weaponised by opposing counsel.

“Lawyers, particularly those working in family law, need to have greater exposure and training in dealing with clients who have experienced trauma.

“Whether it be the lawyer working with the victim and understanding trauma-informed practice or, more importantly, the lawyer on the other side who unfortunately tends to allow their client to continue the control and abuse through the legal and court system and fails to filter or restrain their client,” Jacquet said.

Another major challenge that Jacquet highlighted within the legal system is the financial power imbalance that victim-survivors often face.

“One of the most difficult aspects of working with family violence survivors, especially those who experience coercive control, is the financial power imbalance.

“Usually, the perpetrator controls the finances, and there is limited funding available for the victim to seek good legal advice. This results in the victim having to rely on finding a lawyer to carry their fees, or inevitably a litigation funder or loan with interest rates,” Jacquet said.

What more needs to be done?

All three legal professionals agreed that both the government and legal institutions must take urgent action to address these gaps by allocating additional funding, implementing mandatory training, and enacting systemic reforms.

Elias stressed the need for mandatory trauma-informed training for all lawyers, highlighting that legal professionals frequently interact with victim-survivors and must be equipped to provide appropriate support.

“Despite the 10-hour annual CPD requirement, victim support training is not compulsory – perhaps an oversight that leaves many lawyers unprepared to engage sensitively or appropriately with survivors,” Elias said.

She suggested that such training should cover “trauma responses, the unique needs of survivors, and how to approach cases with empathy, awareness, and a proper understanding of available support services”.

Jacquet reinforced this recommendation, emphasising that such training should foster a “greater understanding of the psychological impact on the client/victim, including how to communicate with and support the victim through the process”.

She further argued that integrating these lessons would help “prevent burnout” in a sector that is already grappling with retention challenges.

Favre emphasised the need for greater collaboration between the legal profession and psychology experts to ensure lawyers are better equipped with the necessary skills to navigate the legal process in a manner that is more sensitive to the needs of their clients.

“Professionals working in this space, such as psychologists, could perhaps shed light on how we can better approach drafting affidavits or taking clients through evidence in their proceedings in a way that is more sensitive to their needs and does not expose them to further trauma,” Favre said.

A major roadblock to providing effective legal support for victim-survivors is the chronic and persistent underfunding of this sector, Elias stressed.

“Funding for legal aid services and community legal centres should be increased, particularly in regional areas, to reduce waitlists and ensure survivors can access timely legal representation. Without adequate resources, even well-intentioned lawyers cannot provide meaningful support,” Elias said.

A longstanding issue in family law cases is the ability of perpetrators to manipulate legal proceedings as a means of maintaining control over their victims. Jacquet stressed the urgent need to address the “lengthy delays in court”, as these delays can “add to the ability of the perpetrator to continue systems abuse”.

Strengthening legal aid programs

While existing legal aid programs and victim support services provide some assistance, there is a consensus that these services are overstretched and underfunded, making them inadequate in meeting the needs of victim-survivors.

Elias expressed how she believes that while existing programs are functional, they are “not great” and “like with anything in life, there’s always room for improvement”.

She explained that this is the case as “they fall short due to underfunding, delays, lack of awareness, and accessibility barriers”.

To effectively address these challenges, Elias identified several key improvements, which included “more funding to improve awareness”, “streamlining application processes to reduce delays”, “culturally inclusive services to meet the diverse needs of all victim-survivors”, and “better use of technology”.

Jacquet withholds a more critical outlook on the current system, arguing that such programs and services “fall very short”.

She said: “I find myself referring clients to a local privately funded support service who is not bound by the restrictions government money/grants place on what services they can provide.”

However, Favre commended the benefits of programs like the Family Advocacy and Support Service (FASS), expressing that its staff provide vital support and guidance to individuals navigating the legal system, particularly those without a personal support network.

“The FASS program facilitated by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) has been helpful to clients I represent in family law proceedings, and the staff working with this service have been supportive in a variety of ways, including just being good company for those who do not have family or friend support at hearings,” Favre said.

“The FCFCOA has done a great job in placing FASS workers on circuit to travel around to different court registries and provide support to those in rural locations, so the services are not just concentrated in the main registries like Sydney, Parramatta, Wollongong and Newcastle.”