Wangmann, J, Bartlett, F, Batagol, B, Booth, T, Douglas, H, Kaye, M & Seear, K 2023, 'What is ‘good’ domestic violence lawyering?: views from specialist legal services in Australia', International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, vol. 37, no. 1.
View/Download from: Publisher's site
View description>>
Abstract There is increasing recognition that many lawyers, regardless of their practice area, will represent people who have both used and experienced violence in their intimate relationships. This suggests that being informed about domestic and family violence (DFV) is an important attribute of competent lawyering. Despite repeated reports and research drawing attention to poor practices, many lawyers lack DFV training. There is limited research about what it means to be a ‘good’ DFV lawyer. To explore this, we conducted focus groups with lawyers employed in specialist women’s legal services in Australia. Much work undertaken in these services involves working with clients who have experienced DFV, so these lawyers are well placed to identify features of ‘good’ DFV lawyering. The attributes for competent lawyering with people who have experienced DFV, include being knowledgeable about DFV, being trauma-informed/responsive, being knowledgeable about the law and the relevance of violence, adopting a safety lens and providing a holistic service. Our study identifies a number of areas that require further research including understanding the difference between DFV-informed lawyering and trauma-informed/responsive lawyering, and whether specific competencies are required when representing people who experience DFV or have used DFV. Despite years of research and various inquiries pointing to inadequacies and making recommendations for improvement, this article draws attention to continuing gaps in this area.
Wangmann, J, Bartlett, F, Batagol, B, Booth, T, Douglas, H, Kaye, M & Seear, K 2023, 'What is 'good' domestic violence lawyering? Views from specialist legal services in Australia', International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 1-23.
View/Download from: Publisher's site
View description>>
There is increasing recognition that many lawyers, regardless of their practice area, will represent people who have both used and experienced violence in their intimate relationships. This suggests that being informed about domestic and family violence (DFV) is an important attribute of competent lawyering. Despite repeated reports and research drawing attention to poor practices, many lawyers lack DFV training. There is limited research about what it means to be a ‘good’ DFV lawyer. To explore this, we conducted focus groups with lawyers employed in specialist women’s legal services in Australia. Much work undertaken in these services involves working with clients who have experienced DFV, so these lawyers are well placed to identify features of ‘good’ DFV lawyering. The attributes for competent lawyering with people who have experienced DFV, include: being knowledgeable about DFV, being trauma-informed/responsive, being knowledgeable about the law and the relevance of violence, adopting a safety lens and providing a holistic service. Our study identifies a number of areas that require further research including understanding the difference between DFV-informed lawyering and trauma-informed/responsive lawyering, and whether specific competencies are required when representing people who experience DFV or have used DFV. Despite years of research and various inquiries pointing to inadequacies and making recommendations for improvement, this article draws attention to continuing gaps in this area.
Wangmann, JM, Kaye, M & Booth, T 2023, 'Addressing the Problem of Direct Cross-Examination in Australian Family Law Proceedings', University of New South Wales Law Journal, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 1415-1448.
View/Download from: Publisher's site
View description>>
Difficulties experienced by victims of family violence who are cross-examined by the unrepresented perpetrator of that violence (or vice versa) in family law proceedings are well-documented. Such direct cross-examination can be traumatic and unlikely to generate high quality evidence. In 2019 this problem was addressed in Australia by the Family Violence and Cross-Examination Scheme (‘Scheme’). Under this Scheme, direct cross-examination by self-represented litigants is prohibited on a mandatory or discretionary basis in certain family law cases involving allegations of family violence. This article examines the implementation of the Scheme by drawing on data from a large ethnographic project that was concerned with self-representation in family law proceedings involving allegations of family violence and an analysis of recent case law. We highlight issues in the early administration of the Scheme as well as more complex ongoing issues. This article provides an evidence base to guide policy and legislative developments in this area.
