{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01440329218106996, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009259259259259259, 'mean_word_length': 5.483333333333333, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The retreat of the legal profession from legal aid: labour market change in the Australian mixed model1

In the 30 years after WWII, a number of countries reformed state-funded legal aid. Most chose models of legal aid delivery that involved the private legal professions. Countries such as the United Kingdom and New Zealand and many provinces in Canada adopted Judicare models, in which private practitioners represented people approved legal aid. Other countries including Australia and The Netherlands and the Canadian province of Quebec adopted mixed models, in which both private and publicly employed legal practitioners provided legal aid services. Conflicting attitudes towards expenditure meant that relationships between governments and legal aid agencies and the private legal professions were often fraught. By the end of the 1980s, governments were concerned at the increasing cost of legal aid, particularly when the cost of service delivery appeared to exceed inflation, and was not matched by corresponding increases in productivity. Private legal professions began to complain about inadequate remuneration, and the increasing bureaucracy associated with legal aid work. These tensions were compounded in the 1990s when governments restricted eligibility for legal aid and sought to reduce expenditure on legal services provided by the private legal professions. These actions were motivated by a desire to achieve greater control over expenditure and, at least in the English-speaking societies, changed attitudes to social welfare and other public sector expenditure. Private legal professions were generally unhappywith these changes that typically included greater controls over payments to private practitioners and reductions in real remuneration for legal aid work. Over the past ten years, a body of anecdotal and other evidence has accumulated INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION, VOL. 14, NO. 1, MARCH 2007