Bruce Curtis: Courts open in theory but are closed in practice. Otago Daily Times. Link
Summary: Curtis argues that the principal barrier to access to justice in New Zealand is the high cost of legal services rather than a shortage of judges or court funding. He contends that lawyers operate within a self-regulating system that permits broad discretion in fee-setting, making legal representation unaffordable for many individuals and small businesses. Curtis maintains that the billable-hour model rewards delay rather than efficient resolution, increasing costs and discouraging people from pursuing legitimate claims. He further argues that the legal profession’s control over regulation and complaints processes limits accountability and shields lawyers from meaningful competition. Curtis concludes by advocating fixed fees, transparent pricing, independent oversight of legal costs, and greater use of non-lawyer advocates and online services to improve access to justice.
Bruce Curtis: NZ’s justice system is shaped to increase the billable hours of lawyers. Hawkes Bay Today. Link
Summary: Curtis argues that the Disputes Tribunal is one of the most effective parts of New Zealand’s justice system because it resolves disputes quickly, cheaply and without lawyers. He contends that the tribunal’s monetary cap is arbitrary and forces many litigants into expensive court processes where legal costs often exceed the value of the dispute. Curtis maintains that the adversarial court system rewards delay, procedure and billable hours, while simpler judge-led or inquisitorial models could deliver faster and fairer outcomes. He argues that efforts to reform civil justice have been quietly resisted by legal professional bodies because greater efficiency would reduce lawyers’ income. Curtis concludes that the Disputes Tribunal should be able to hear much larger disputes, or even disputes of any size where both parties agree, giving people access to a cheaper and more effective forum for resolving conflicts.
Bruce Curtis: Cap makes justice inaccessible. Otago Daily Times. Link
Summary: Curtis argues that the $30,000 cap on Disputes Tribunal claims is arbitrary and forces many people into expensive court processes that they cannot afford. He contends that the adversarial court system generates delay, paperwork and legal costs that primarily benefit lawyers rather than litigants seeking fair outcomes. Drawing on comments by retired High Court judge Sir John Hansen, Curtis maintains that civil courts are poorly designed to discover the truth and instead reward procedural complexity. He argues that attempts to introduce more efficient, inquisitorial civil-justice reforms were quietly resisted by legal professional bodies because such changes would reduce billable work. Curtis concludes that New Zealand should remove the tribunal cap and expand judge-led civil processes to make justice faster, cheaper and more accessible.
Bruce Curtis: How lawyers turn routine legal work into a luxury few can afford. New Zealand Herald. Link
Summary: Curtis argues that legal services in New Zealand have become unaffordable for many people, with routine legal work attracting fees far beyond the complexity of the tasks involved. He contends that lawyers use urgency fees, standard documents, and specialised legal knowledge to justify charges that bear little relationship to the actual work performed. Curtis maintains that reliance on inherited English common-law principles, private arbitration, and complex procedures leaves ordinary people dependent on expensive legal advice. He further argues that the legal profession restricts the supply of practising lawyers through training and credentialling bottlenecks, helping to keep fees high. Curtis concludes that the access-to-justice crisis begins with the structure and economics of the legal profession itself, leaving many New Zealanders unable to afford basic legal assistance or pursue their rights.
Bruce Curtis: The exploitation of young lawyers: a warning to vulnerable law students. Otago Daily Times. Link
Summary: Curtis argues that young lawyers are routinely exploited through a professional structure that relies on long hours, heavy workloads and relatively low effective pay while firms capture the profits from their labour. He contends that the legal profession disguises this arrangement as “mentoring”, even though many junior lawyers experience it as a process of labour extraction and attrition rather than genuine training. Curtis maintains that the system deliberately filters out large numbers of graduates, preserving the scarcity and earning power of senior lawyers while providing a steady supply of compliant junior staff. He further argues that the same dynamics are evident in legal aid, where junior lawyers carry substantial responsibilities under demanding conditions while firms seek to remain financially viable. Curtis concludes that the exploitation of young lawyers is inseparable from wider problems of access to justice, because the profession’s business model prioritises senior income and firm profitability over both junior practitioners and the public.
Bruce Curtis: AI is more efficient but can harm lawyer-client trust. Otago Daily Times. Link
Summary: Curtis argues that the legal profession is adopting AI in ways that increase efficiency and profitability for firms while shifting risks onto clients and junior lawyers. He contends that AI is replacing much of the routine work through which young lawyers traditionally developed professional judgement, creating the prospect of a less experienced and less capable profession in the future. Curtis maintains that clients often have little knowledge of how AI is used in their cases and may be exposed to errors, omissions, or flawed reasoning without adequate disclosure or safeguards. He further argues that AI deepens the information imbalance between lawyers and clients by making legal advice harder to scrutinise and responsibility for mistakes more difficult to assign. Curtis concludes that AI should be subject to stronger rules, transparency requirements, and accountability measures before its widespread use causes routine harm to clients and undermines trust in the legal system.
