The longer I work in the law – as both a strategic advisor to the sector, and a business owner – the more possibilities I observe for the profession to play a progressive, shaping and meaningful role in society.
As a feminist and community organiser, I view Ruby Assembly’s work in the #NewLaw space as being part of the progressive machinery of change. Too many women, people of color, LGBTQI individuals and minorities view the law as ‘not for them’, either because of cost or because they (often rightly) recognise the inherent prejudices hard-wired into the system, designed to disadvantage them and enable abusers or vexatious litigants. By providing more opportunities for legal practices to appear accessible and non-threatening to customers, we are demystifying a category that needs more than a touch more diversity and democratisation to better balance our community.
I think the profession itself has a role in the general wellness of our society; not merely as servants of the existing legal architecture that – it is fair to say – requires examination and revision. Much has been written about the unethical approach to decimating rape victims and victims of institutional abuse on the stand, and the necessity for the culture at large to change. Of late, it is fair to say that a similar culture check (or pub test) needs to be had around the ethical code of BigLaw practices happy to represent the NDIS against clients. My question is: does the law as a profession have a better role to play in the design of a healthy society? And is it appropriate to accept taxpayer funds to represent mostly-fruitless cases against NDIS clients?
1. The Ethical Tightrope of Government Contracts
Under Australia’s updated Commonwealth Procurement Rules (CPRs), suppliers to the government—including law firms—must adhere to stringent ethical standards, including integrity, accountability, and respect for rights. BigLaw’s role in representing the NDIS against participants raises questions about whether aggressive tribunal tactics align with these obligations. For example, pursuing “fruitless” cases (e.g., disputing legitimate claims) could violate the CPRs’ emphasis on ethical conduct, risking contract termination or reputational damage.
2. NDIS Compliance Practices and the Robodebt Shadow
Recent scrutiny of NDIS compliance mechanisms has highlighted parallels to the Robodebt scandal, where automated systems created unjust outcomes for vulnerable individuals. If BigLaw firms enable similar practices—such as challenging NDIS participants’ claims without merit—they risk complicity in systemic harm. The NDIS Code of Conduct explicitly prohibits exploiting participants, yet firms prioritizing billable hours (we’re team value pricing, by the way) over ethical scrutiny may inadvertently perpetuate such issues.
3. The Cost to Taxpayers and Public Trust
Government contracts with BigLaw for tribunal disputes divert public funds from NDIS support services to litigation. The NDIS Taskforce has already exposed providers overcharging participants, and funneling state resources into adversarial legal battles against those participants undermines the scheme’s purpose. Public backlash, akin to the Robodebt fallout, could tarnish both the NDIS and participating firms.
4. BigLaw’s Opportunity for Leadership
Refusing ethically dubious tribunal work could position BigLaw as a champion of justice. The CPRs reward suppliers that demonstrate “high standards of ethics”, and firms could leverage this by:
• Advocating for fair dispute resolution: Prioritizing mediation over litigation to reduce costs and trauma for participants.
• Aligning with procurement reforms: Supporting the CPRs’ focus on SMEs and social equity by subcontracting to community legal services.
• Setting ethical precedents: Withdrawing from cases that conflict with the NDIS Code of Conduct or Australian Consumer Law.
5. The Moral Imperative vs. Profit Motives
While tribunal work is lucrative, firms must weigh short-term profits against long-term reputational risks. The legal profession’s ethical obligations—to act in the interests of justice and avoid misuse of legal processes—demand scrutiny of cases that target vulnerable populations. Firms persisting in aggressive litigation risk being labelled “predatory,” mirroring the NDIS providers already under investigation.
BigLaw’s role in NDIS disputes should reflect the government’s procurement values: ethical behavior, accountability, and social responsibility. By refusing to engage in unmeritorious tribunal actions, firms can align with reforms, protect public trust, and uphold the dignity of NDIS participants—turning a “bad look” into a legacy of integrity. I firmly believe that the legal profession has a role to play in equity of access to representation, and to avoid the abuse of the vulnerable. We are a great profession, and an empowering one at our best; it is beneath us to accept predatory appointments that cost our community in social trust and in hard cash.
