Abstract

This book re-examines legal need in the light of contemporary philosophy, social policy analysis, medical economics and the trend towards evaluation of legal services. From this exploration a new perspective emerges - testing for non-need by comparing the consequences of absence and presence of legal representation. The tests cover empirical research from five Common Law jurisdictions on five outcomes (the cure hypothesis): plea, venue, bail, verdict and sentence. From this it is concluded that the general case for legal need is not proven. In this place as inverted need the judge is re-imported as the key variable in legal decisions. Finally the clinical analogy with legal need is discussed - legal aid as welfare or as subsidy; victim's needs and the mode of criminal justice.