Modernisation of the Justice Sector in Portugal

3. Legal needs in Portugal

Abstract

This chapter delves into legal needs in Portugal, employing a people-centred approach to understand and address these requirements comprehensively. The chapter outlines the methodology and findings of recent legal needs surveys (LNS) conducted in the country. It discusses some of the main strengths, gaps and implications of unmet legal needs. It examines the types of legal problems most commonly reported, and the broader social impacts of these unresolved issues. Additionally, the chapter explores the strategic use of LNS to inform policy and improve access to justice, highlighting the role of such surveys in shaping responsive, inclusive, and effective legal systems. By focusing on the real experiences of individuals and the systemic barriers they face, the chapter underscores the importance of tailoring justice policies to the actual needs of the populace, thus enhancing the overall efficacy and fairness of the justice system in Portugal.

3.1. Background: Understanding and identifying legal needs

People-centred justice refers to an approach that adopts the perspective of people as a starting point and places them at the core when designing, delivering and evaluating public policies, services and legal procedures within and beyond the justice system. A people-centred approach considers the perspectives and needs of all, including specific communities such as marginalised, underserved and groups in vulnerable situations (OECD, 2023[1]). The first step in designing and delivering people-centred justice policies and services is the identification of legal and justice needs of the community.

Measuring legal and justice needs is not a straightforward task. Many people do not recognise problems they experience as “legal”, and as a result are unlikely to pursue legal assistance or remedies. Further, years of global legal needs research have consistently shown that only a very small proportion of legal problems reach the traditional justice system or even legal services. Any administrative or service data about the matters taken to these services or the users of these services can only provide information about that very small proportion of matters that reach formal legal services. In other words, administrative data cannot give a comprehensive picture of the legal needs of the community. In fact, it may give a skewed picture of the overall legal needs in the community, in favour of the type of matters that reach formal justice.

Since the Paths to Justice reports in the United Kingdom in the late 1990s, legal need surveys (LNS) have become increasingly popular across the globe as a means of identifying the legal needs of the community from a people’s perspective. Legal needs surveys have many benefits. They do not rely on individuals recognising that a problem is legal or not. Instead, they delve into people’s real experiences, actions taken, and encounters when facing legal or justice issues. Importantly, LNS are the most feasible tool available to gain a representative picture of the legal needs of people across a country or jurisdiction (see Box 3.1).

Box 3.1. Legal needs surveys

Legal needs surveys are based on representative samples of a target population that investigate the experience of legal and justice problems from the perspective of those who face them rather than the professions and institutions that may play a role in their resolution. Therefore, legal need surveys:

1. Focus on experience (and the actions people took or not) rather than perceptions and attitudes as they ask respondents about specific events experienced rather than hypothetical situations.

2. Enable the quantification of justiciable problem experience across populations; identify and explore the full range of responses to problems and, within this, the different paths to justice and the full range of sources of help and institutions available.

3. Are an essential complement that contextualise administrative data and provide an overview of a population’s perspective on access to justice.

4. Are distinct from crime victimisation or offending surveys, generally focusing on civil legal issues (e.g. family, commercial, administrative), although many also enquire into the experience of matters relating to criminal law.

5. Do not rely only on people who experienced a legal problem knowing their problem was “legal”; likewise, do not rely on the person experiencing the problem having taken action and/or used a legal service.

Legal needs surveys provide a uniquely comprehensive overview of the justice system and people’s experience of resolving justiciable problems. It is an overview that cannot be achieved by other means and, as such, legal needs surveys provide vital data concerning access to justice. Such surveys provide an empirical basis for understanding how people’s justice issues arise and how they affect numerous development sectors. At a national level, they are increasingly viewed as an important tool for policy makers and civil society.

Legal needs surveys thus provide the “big picture” of people’s efforts to access justice. They can:

1. Enable the quantification of justiciable problem experience across populations and the mapping of patterns of problem-resolving behaviour;

2. Shed light on experience and behaviour over time;

3. Identify obstacles to accessing legal services and processes, such as poor service delivery, from individual and community perspectives;

4. Help identify areas for policy reform and serve as a mechanism to monitor changes in experience and behaviour against a backdrop of legal service reform;

5. Enable more targeted justice services, inform government’s investment, and strengthen the delivery of other public services,

6. Improve understanding of and responding to the demands of populations, including marginalised communities whose legal needs are often ignored;

7. Enable countries to measure progress and report against the Sustainable Development Goals’ “access to justice” indicator SDG 16.3.3. Importantly, a legal needs survey has the potential to enable countries to report against several other SDG 16 indicators.

LNS are international “good practice” and essential for people-centred justice. The OECD People-Centred Justice Framework and OECD Recommendation on Access to Justice and People-Centred Justice Systems emphasise that the design and delivery of justice services must commence with a sound understanding of the legal needs of all the people. Conducting legal needs surveys is an essential part of this.

Source: OECD/Open Society Foundations (2019[2]), Legal Needs Surveys and Access to Justice, https://www.oecd.org/governance/legal-needs-surveys-and-access-to-justice-g2g9a36c-en.htm; Adams et al (2017[3]), Global Insights on Access to Justice 2017; Adams et al (2018[4]), Global Insights on Access to Justice 2018, https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/publications/special-reports/global-insights-access-justice-2018; OECD/Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies (2023[5]), Improving the monitoring of SDG 16.3.3: Towards better access to justice, https://www.oecd.org/publications/improving-the-monitoring-of-sdg-16-3-3-3-c5fbed7e-en.htm; OECD (2021[6]), OECD Framework and Good Practice Principles for People-Centred Justice, https://www.oecd.org/publications/oecd-framework-and-good-practice-principles-for-people-centred-justice-cdc3bde7-en.htm; OECD (2023[1]), Recommendation on Access to Justice and People-Centred Justice Systems, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0498.

Legal needs surveys, however, have limitations. Firstly, they might not be the best tool for delving into technical aspects of service delivery or formal legal procedures. Additionally, when it comes to rare types of problems or behaviours, it might not provide extensive insights unless the survey employs a suitable sample frame. Moreover, these surveys might not fully explore the reasons behind or the effects of legal issues going beyond people’s perceptions. They also might not thoroughly assess the effects of particular legal services or the impact of specific reforms (OECD/Open Society Foundations, 2019[2]). LNS also do not usually provide the needed disaggregation to support small area modelling capability. LNS also cannot generally provide details about the particular needs and experiences of minority groups in particular circumstances.

While LNS provide the only means of gaining a representative picture of legal needs (see Box 3.2), other data sources can be used to complement LNS data and analysis to gain more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of legal needs. These data sources include:

• Criminal court/prosecution data. This data can give insight into the specific criminal defense/representation needs by court/location and, depending on data collected, by user characteristics;

• Official data (e.g. census data). Legal needs surveys can provide insight of particular vulnerabilities of different groups to different legal problem types. Official demographic data, by providing insight into the conditions in regions and communities, can help to locate vulnerable groups and areas where higher levels of particular legal needs are likely.

• Service delivery data. Notwithstanding its limitation of only providing insight into those matters/people that reach formal service, such data can nevertheless provide insight about those receiving legal assistance;

• Detailed, qualitative research data. Rare legal problems, minority and other hard-to-reach communities are difficult to capture through LNS. More nuanced and comprehensive understandings of legal and justice needs may arise from long-term engagement with the lived experiences of vulnerable communities.

Box 3.2. What we know about legal needs of people: A research summary

Growing empirical research provides an overview of the nature and distribution of legal needs and the capability of different people to manage their legal issues. In summary, the research indicates that:

• There is a concentration in the experience of legal problems. For example, in Australia, the Legal Australia Wide (LAW) legal needs survey found that 9% of respondents accounted for 65% of legal problems.

• About one-third of people experience at least one justiciable problem over a two-year period, although this varies from country to country.

• Consumer problems are routinely among the three most prevalent justiciable problems, along with those concerning neighbours and money. Problems relating to families, housing, employment, social safety net assistance, public services and nationality are also commonly experienced.

• Inequity links to social disadvantage. Research has consistently shown that legal problems are particularly prevalent among people with chronic ill health or disability, single parents, the unemployed and people in disadvantaged housing. Thus, the concentration reflects inequality in the experience of legal problems.

• Social disadvantage is linked to a lower capability to deal with legal problems. The evidence further indicates that those most vulnerable to legal problems tend to have less knowledge, resources and self-help skills to deal with legal problems. They also tend towards delayed and crisis-driven help-seeking.

• Legal problems do not exist in isolation. They often occur in defined “clusters”, co-existing with “everyday life” problems.

• Globally, around one-half of the people who experience a civil or administrative justiciable problem cannot meet their legal needs, amounting to approximately 1.4 billion people. Only a minority of legal needs surveys have found that courts or tribunals resolved more than 10% of justiciable problems, with some suggesting a rate of 5% or lower. Furthermore, where a formal process is used, it tends to be used in relation to particular problem types, such as those concerning family breakdowns.

Source: OECD/Open Society Foundations (2019[2]), Legal Needs Surveys and Access to Justice, https://www.oecd.org/governance/legal-needs-surveys-and-access-to-justice-g2g9a36c-en.htm; World Justice Project (2019[7]), Measuring the Justice Gap, https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/research-and-data/access-justice/measuring-justice-gap; Coumarelos et al. (2012[8]), Legal Australia-Wide Survey: Legal Need in Australia, Law and Justice Foundation of New South Wales, Sydney.

3.2. Legal needs in Portugal: Project assessment

3.2.1. Prevalence of legal problems

In the 2023 Portuguese legal needs survey, 505 respondents from the sample of 1 500 people (34%) reported experiencing at least one legal or justice problem during the two-year reference period. This is consistent with the general picture from the large number of LNS conducted across many countries over the last two decades that legal and justice problems are ubiquitous across the globe (OECD/Open Society Foundations, 2019[2]). Most commonly, estimates of prevalence fell in the range of 30% to 60% over a three- or four-year period.

The ubiquity of legal problems is common, given the extent of law and its impact in contemporary life. Importantly, the nature of legal problems is often similar across jurisdictions, as people engage in many of the same activities (OECD/Open Society Foundations, 2019[2]). In the 2023 legal needs survey in Portugal, the most common problems interviewees experienced were consumer matters (16%, or 119 out of 726 problems), neighbours (14.6% or 106) and money/debt (8.7% or 63). These findings closely paralleled results from other legal needs surveys, where consumer problems are among the three most prevalent problems, along with those concerning neighbours and money (OECD/Open Society Foundations, 2019[2]). Other legal needs surveys have generally found that problems relating to families, housing, employment, social safety net assistance, public services and nationality are also commonly experienced (OECD/Open Society Foundations, 2019[2]). In the 2023 LNS in Portugal, legal problems relating to housing (8%), family (8%), crime (8%) and employment (7.6%) were the next most common problems experienced.

Legal needs surveys have found that legal problems are not randomly or equally distributed across populations. Particular problems are associated with particular social groups or stages of life. It appears that socio-economic disadvantage is pivotal to the social patterning of problems (Coumarelos et al., 2012[8]). Surveys have repeatedly demonstrated associations between disadvantage, and legal and justice problem experience (OECD/Open Society Foundations, 2019[2]).

Disadvantaged groups associated with elevated experience of justiciable problems include those people receiving social safety net assistance, suffering from a disability, particularly mental health problems, or long-term health problems (Pleasence and Balmer, 2013[9]). Single parents (Buck, Pleasence and Balmer, 2004[10]). Victims of crime and displaced persons are other examples of groups found to be highly vulnerable (OECD/Open Society Foundations, 2019[2]). To illustrate, findings from the 2008 Australian LAW Survey indicate that people with combined mental and physical illness/disability of a high severity were more than 10 times as likely to report legal problems as those with no illness/disability (Coumarelos, Pleasence and Wei, 2013[11]).

While patterns of vulnerability vary between jurisdictions owing to differences in social structures and behaviour, a systematic review of findings has previously concluded that patterns are fairly similar across jurisdictions, with few conflicts (Pleasence and Balmer, 2013[9]). There are various reasons for the link between legal and justice problem experience and disadvantage. Certain problems are a feature of groups in vulnerable or disadvantaged situations, such as those concerning social safety net assistance. Groups in disadvantaged situations are generally able to draw on fewer resources and are less able to avoid or mitigate problems. Moreover, legal and justice problems have an additive effect, meaning that the experience of problems increases the likelihood of further problem experience, exacerbating disadvantage (OECD/Open Society Foundations, 2019[2]).

The narrower scope of the LNS in Portugal has made it challenging to conduct similar analysis of legal need by different vulnerable groups. Nevertheless, the results align reasonably well with international findings. The main studies carried out in Portugal on national legal needs give some indication of the different experiences of litigation perceived by people from different social classes. The two most comprehensive surveys representative of the Portuguese population were carried out by the Centre for Social Studies in 1993 (Santos et al., 1996[12]) and in 2001 (Santos et al., 2004[13]), and the "Survey of feelings of justice in an urban environment", carried out in 2002 in Lisbon (Hespanha, 2005[14]). These studies highlight that the most vulnerable groups face significant barriers in accessing formal conflict resolution mechanisms. They not only have limited opportunities to utilise these formal systems but also tend to be more dissatisfied with the outcomes.

3.2.2. Impact of justiciable problems and problem clustering

Legal and justice problems often follow on from one another, or broader social, health or economic problems. They have been repeatedly found to have a substantial impact on the lives of those facing them (OECD/Open Society Foundations, 2019[2]).

In the 2023 Portuguese legal needs survey, 68.5% of the respondents who experienced at least one legal or justice problem also experienced at least one form of substantial impact on their lives (e.g. illness, property damage, economic or relationship loss) as a result of that problem. For the Portuguese respondents, 52% experienced stress, 22% experienced financial loss, while 11% reported experiencing a loss of confidence or the rise of fear.

While the 2023 Portuguese LNS did not include questions to support a quantification of the cost to individuals and/or the public as a result of experiencing the legal or justice problem, it is worth noting that the economic cost of the impact of justiciable problems on individuals and public services was estimated to exceed USD five billion per year on the basis of the 2004 English and Welsh Civil and Social Justice Survey (Pleasence, 2006[15]). Similarly, according to the 2014 Canadian National Survey of Everyday Legal Problems, the annual cost to public services was estimated to be approximately CAD 800 million (OECD, 2019[16]).

The impact of justiciable problems can provoke and worsen broader social problems, including poverty. Research on legal needs and access to justice has shown that there is a relationship between legal problems and poverty. Unresolved legal issues can have serious economic and social consequences, potentially driving individuals in vulnerable situations into poverty. For instance, issues like wrongful job termination, financial debts, or being denied social safety net benefits can directly contribute to this situation. Moreover, unaddressed legal problems can act as barriers preventing someone already in poverty from breaking free from it (Prettitore, 2015[17]).

The impact of justiciable problems also contributes to the phenomenon of problem clustering, which is the increased tendency of particular justiciable problems to co-occur when more than one problem type is experienced. The most commonly identified problem clusters have been observed in the context of family breakdown, where domestic violence, divorce, ancillary issues and problems concerning children link closely. Other identified clusters include clusters centred on economic activity (e.g. problems concerning employment, money, consumer transactions, welfare benefits and housing), and problems centred on poor-quality housing (OECD/Open Society Foundations, 2019[2]).

Problem clustering also occurs when some problem types arise from similar sets of circumstances or are associated with the same demographic factors. Results in the 2011 Moldovan survey showed how domestic violence can cause relationship breakdown, unemployment, tenant-landlord and debt problems (Gramatikov, 2012[18]). While the size and scope of the 2023 Portuguese LNS limits the possibility to undertake cluster analysis, it is important to note that of the 34% (505) of respondents who reported experiencing at least one legal or justice problem, 28% (141) experienced more than one problem.

3.2.3. Pathways: Responding to legal problems

Gaining some insight into the pathways people take in response to their legal problems was among the main objectives of the diagnosis phase of this project. Based on the LNS data, it has been possible to gain some insight into the pathways people take by examining their (a) actions when seeking and obtaining assistance, (b) actions concerning problem resolution, and (c) awareness of available legal services and pathways.

Obtaining assistance

The 2023 Portuguese LNS inquired if respondents obtained advice, information or representation to help them understand or resolve a legal problem. This aimed at identifying actions of advice- and assistance-seeking that might or not be directly linked to a final problem resolution step. Results showed that 43% (215) of those who experienced a legal problem obtained either information, advice or representation, while 57% did not. Of those who obtained assistance (more than one possible):

• 36% (183) sought assistance from family, a friend or an acquaintance;

• 26% (132) sought assistance from a lawyer, professional legal organisation, or online advice services;

• 20% (103) sought assistance from another person, such as a doctor, schoolteacher or pharmacist.

This is an important finding and consistent with previous LNS around the world. The significance of these findings from a people-centred perspective are that results reveal what people actually do in response to problems. These results shed light on the importance of providing services and pathways that suit people in their particular circumstances.

Solving a problem

The 2023 Portuguese legal needs survey also asked if respondents or their representatives turned to a court or some of the following mechanisms to bring about resolution to their problem. This question aimed to identify the mechanism used to address problems that had been resolved. In brief, only 186 (of the 505 legal or justice problems followed up in the survey) had been referred to one of the dispute resolution processes. Within the top three, 75 were referred to the police (40%), 59 referred to a court (32%) and 41 (22%) were taken to a government or municipal authority.

Actual problem resolution provided a different picture. Many problems were resolved outside of formal dispute resolution mechanisms. Likewise, not all problems that were referred to such a mechanism were resolved there. When inquired about which people or organisations took the final decision to resolve the problem, of the 314 respondents who reported their problem solved:

• for 24.5% (77), the most frequent was government or municipal authority; while

• for 14% (45), the next most frequent decision-making person/organisation was third-party online complaints or dispute resolution mechanisms, such as provided by commercial services.

In terms of importance for younger individuals, third-party online dispute resolution mechanisms stood out as the most prevalent method, being used in 21.2% of resolved issues among those aged 18 to 24 and in 22.7% of cases among the 25-to-34 age group. Moreover, in the Algarve region, it accounted for 22% of resolved legal and justice problems, making it the most commonly employed resolution method there.

Awareness

Another important element in understanding the pathways people take to resolving their legal problems is their awareness of organisations, institutions or individuals that can help them, either by explaining or assisting them with the processes, or in resolving the problem. The 2023 Portuguese LNS asked two questions to get some insight about level of awareness of available services. The first question was unprompted to assess general awareness without leading respondents with names of services. The second question was prompted by referring to names of specific justice organisations and related institutions.

In the unprompted question, when inquired to name any services that provide free or affordable information, advice or assistance to help people facing problems, results showed that only 640 respondents (43%) could name at least one organisation. There was a variety in the organisations mentioned. Many respondents could name multiple organisations, although their knowledge of their roles was not asked. The top 10 organisations identified were the Portuguese Association for Consumer Protection (DECO)(18%), the Portuguese Association for Victim Support (APAV) (12%), the police (5%), Social Security Institute (4.4%), including legal aid services (0.6%), Authority for Work Conditions (ACT) (3.1%), courts (2.5%), lawyers (2%), ombudsperson/public prosecution service (1.8%), councils or municipalities (1.5%), Child and Youth Protection Commissions (CPCJ) (1.3%).

The results above suggest some interesting insights on general awareness of the population regarding services the legal system offers, and the important role of the third sector in providing information, advice or assistance to help people encountering problems. These results also confirm findings from stakeholders’ interviews, suggesting very good practices by DECO and APAV in raising awareness among the population. In contrast, stakeholder interviews suggested that many formal justice and other government agencies relied heavily on government websites and related modes for awareness communications. The survey results raise questions about the effectiveness of relying on formal government websites and similar mechanisms to encourage awareness of and access to services.

In the prompted question, the 2023 Portuguese legal needs survey listed a number of entities/organisations and asked respondents (1 500) whether they knew about them and what they do to help people solve problems. The top 11 entities or organisations identified were DECO (83%), Social Security Institute (80%), APAV (78%), Parish Councils (76%), ACT (70%), trade unions (69%), public prosecutors (66%), Child and Youth Protection Commissioner (66%), ombudsperson (54%), legal aid1 (52.7%) and justice of the peace courts (43%).

3.3. Locating legal needs

Legal services may only be effective and efficient if they provide the most appropriate services based on the specific legal needs of people and delivered at a time and place where and when they are needed. A people-centred justice system seeks to know which groups of people are most vulnerable to which legal and justice problems and maps those problems. It identifies and delivers the suitable service type to address specific legal and justice problems in unique circumstances for each individual. Mapping legal services against needs is a key evidence-based tool in this planning process.

Locating legal needs geographically and temporally is not a simple task, and LNS rarely has large enough samples to provide small area detail. However, as discussed in Chapter 6, the type of data sources that can be employed include:

• Official data: LNS rarely provides sufficient insight into justice needs in small regions within a jurisdiction. However, the insights from legal needs surveys in relation to particular groups or issues can be applied to official census and other population-level datasets to provide insights into the location of likely legal and justice needs.

• Service delivery and administrative data: While the utility of these data can be limited by a relative scarcity of justice services delivered, or data being collected, they can provide insight into local demand on services for particular legal and justice needs.

• Data from community service organisations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs): Civil society organisations (CSOs) and NGOs generally have long-term service and support relationships with targeted disadvantaged communities. If given adequate support, data from these agencies can provide useful insight into legal and justice needs and their location.

Locating legal needs, the matching of services to that need, the data presently available for these purposes in Portugal and recommendations from that are discussed further in Chapter 6.

Overall, while the LNS conducted as part of this project was of limited scope and scale, its results provided some important insights. In particular, results highlight the prevalence of legal problems among the Portuguese population, the types of problems, and some of the impacts these problems have for those who experience them. Likewise, results have also provided insight into the awareness people have of legal service options in Portugal as well as the pathways that they take in relation to addressing legal problems.

References

[3] Adams, K; Botero, J.C.; Coto, A; Evangelides, A; Gryskiewicz, A; Gutiérrez Patiño, C; Chamness Long, S; McDaniel, L; Mujeeb, M; Ponce, A; Treacy, N (2017), Global Insights on Access to Justice.

[4] Adams, K; Botero, J.C.; Evangelides, A; Gryskiewicz, A; Gutiérrez Patiño, C; Harman, M; Hopkins, A; Chamness Long; Chamness Long, S; Martin, R; Ponce, A; Solís Saravia, L (2018), Global Insights on Access to Justice 2018, https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/publications/special-reports/global-insights-access-justice-2018.

[10] Buck, A., P. Pleasence and N. Balmer (2004), “Lone parents and civil law: Their experience of problems and their advice-seeking behaviour”, Social Policy and Administration, Vol. 38/3, pp. 253-269, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2004.00389.x.

[8] Coumarelos, C. et al. (2012), Legal Australia-Wide Survey: legal need in Australia, Law and Justice Foundation of New South Wales, Sydney.

[11] Coumarelos, C., P. Pleasence and Z. Wei (2013), Law and disorders: Illness/disability and the experience of everyday problems involving the law.

[18] Gramatikov, M. (2012), Met and Unmet Legal Needs in Moldova.

[14] Hespanha, A. (2005), Inquéritos aos Sentimentos de Justiça num Ambiente Urbano.

[1] OECD (2023), Recommendation on Access to Justice an People-Centred Justice Systems, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0498.

[6] OECD (2021), OECD Framework and Good Practice Principles for People-Centred Justice, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cdc3bde7-en.

[16] OECD (2019), Building a business case for access to justice, OECD White Paper, https://www.oecd.org/gov/building-a-business-case-for-access-to-justice.pdf.

[2] OECD/Open Society Foundations (2019), Legal Needs Surveys and Access to Justice, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/g2g9a36c-en.

[5] OECD/Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies (2023), “Improving the monitoring of SDG 16.3.3: Towards better access to justice”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 38, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c5fbed7e-en.

[15] Pleasence, P. (2006), Causes of Action: Civil Law and Social Justice.

[9] Pleasence, P. and N. Balmer (2013), English and Welsh Civil and Social Justice Panel Survey: Wave 2.

[17] Prettitore, P. (2015), Poverty and legal problems in Jordan: Defining the relationship.

[13] Santos, B. et al. (2004), Inquérito à opinião pública sobre o funcionamento dos tribunais em Portugal.

[12] Santos, B. et al. (1996), Os Tribunais nas Sociedades Contemporâneas: O Caso Português..

[7] World Justice Project (2019), Measuring the Justice Gap, https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/research-and-data/access-justice/measuring-justice-gap.

Note

← 1.  The Social Security Institute is responsible for processing all applications for legal aid in Portugal, which is likely to imply that a large proportion of people who selected SSI in their responses may actually be “legal aid”, and vice versa. At the same time, it is possible that some respondents selected SSI in their social security capacity, which may have led to a certain overlap, with the note that 736 respondents selected both SSI and legal aid.