The service's interim chief executive Janet Chapman said comments from lawyers claiming they wouldn't feel safe visiting clients in Nolan House perpetuated negative stigma and implied people with mental illnesses were "inherently dangerous, which is patently untrue and perpetuates the stigma which many feel".

Ms Chapman said the service removed CCTV monitors in the staff station of the high dependency unit after a directive from the Victorian Chief Psychiatrist and they were working with staff to address any concerns.

She said she was disappointed the Albury and District Regional Law Society had not raised concerns directly as she could have advised there was "no other change to CCTV use or security practices across the campus, including in Nolan House".

But CCTV monitoring is just one issue concerning Border lawyers.

Solicitor Sue Robey, who works with Legal Aid in Nolan House, said the facility was "very limited" and "barely meets the basics required".

IN OTHER NEWS:

"The net result is that very sick people - adults and juveniles - are denied access to essential inpatient services and are treated very inadequately or not at all in the community," she said.

"All too often people found by the courts to be mentally unwell and in need of treatment are being sent to prison because there are no beds or services for them at Nolan House and their extreme behaviours mean they pose an unacceptable risk to the community and cannot be released."

Fellow solicitor Sascha McCorriston said the changes to CCTV at Nolan House was simply the "icing on the cake".

Miss McCorriston said she could not remember the last time a client of hers was sent to AWH under Section 33 of the Mental Health Act and not returned to court.

"We have no confidence they're going to be admitted," she said.

Ms Chapman denied the claims, saying people in need of care are always admitted and decisions on admission are made on a clinical basis.

"When a person has a diagnosed mental health illness that requires admission we would always provide that service," she said.

"We would never discharge someone because we don't have a bed, that would never be the reason, we make decisions about admission based on clinical need."

Ms Chapman said no one at a recent round table attended by representatives from the courts, police and corrective services raised any concerns around Section 33 admittance.