A veteran-turned-lawyer says the Australian Defence Force is failing its members with an unfair internal legal system that it refuses to overhaul.

Key points: The ADF provides legal officers for its members facing Court Martial proceedings, but won't fund civilian lawyers

The ADF provides legal officers for its members facing Court Martial proceedings, but won't fund civilian lawyers Veteran-turned-solicitor Mick Bainbridge has criticised the system, which he says lacks independence

Veteran-turned-solicitor Mick Bainbridge has criticised the system, which he says lacks independence Defence says practitioners who are familiar with military life ensure the system runs efficiently

Defence pays the legal bills for serving personnel and reservists to represent members fighting military charges in Court Martials and Defence Force Magistrate proceedings, but only if members use Defence legal officers.

An ADF member can decline that assistance and retain civilian representation at their own expense — and that needs to change, according to former Special Forces soldier Mick Bainbridge, who now works as a solicitor.

"Defence legal officers see themselves as an officer of the Defence Force first and a legal officer second," Mr Bainbridge said.

"The system needs to be opened up to ensure a little bit more transparency in the manner in which Defence operates these charges and the Defence Magistrates Court."

ADF 'discriminates' on the public purse

Barrister and National Criminal Justice spokesperson for the Australian Lawyers Alliance, Greg Barns, said funding for members who chose their legal representation should not be restricted because it presents a conflict of interest.

"It's an unusual system in that you are given a lawyer and then the organisation that is prosecuting you is also paying for the defence," Mr Barns said.

"I think it's the right of every individual to have their lawyer of choice.

"To discriminate against a person financially simply because they want to use their own choice of lawyer seems to me to be unreasonable."

Barrister Greg Barns from the Australian Lawyers Alliance ( ABC News )

Mr Barns said the Defence Force should be required to operate its legal proceedings and investigations in the same way as other specialist professions across the country.

"The medical profession that has its own specialist discipline system, because there are a range of rules which are particular to that occupation or profession," he said.

"[In that system] one can have one's lawyer of choice.

"Unless there's a particularly acute reason and overwhelming reason to continue with the existing system, one would have thought that [Defence] was an area that should be looked at for reform."

Mr Bainbridge said Australia should look to implement similar changes to those adopted by the military in the United Kingdom.

Mick Bainbridge complete his law degree after leaving the Defence Force. ( Australian Story: Marc Smith )

"In the UK they've actually moved forward and modernised their system, where civilian lawyers can step in and represent those members and it's funded all the same," he said.

"If the system is fair and equitable then it should be no matter of concern to open it up for civilian firms to step in and start managing these cases as well."

A different set of rules

An ADF spokesperson said the military justice system operates under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982.

"With stricter rules and procedures in order to enforce internal discipline, and ensure the operational effectiveness of the services," the spokesperson said.

"For this to be an efficient system, practitioners who are familiar with the unique nature of military life as well as the laws that govern it, are desirable."

Defence said the system does not jeopardise the independence of proceedings before the Defence Force Magistrate or Courts Martial.

"At all times the ADF member 'owns' the Legal Professional Privilege (LPP)," the spokesperson said.

"And … Defence recognises this LPP."