Login
Barrister’s practising certificate bid objected by opposing client
A barrister who appeared in court without a practising certificate applied to have one retrospectively applied, but the opposing party in her former client’s matter has sought to prevent that from happening.
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
A trial has been set for later this year to determine whether a South Australian barrister should be given a practising certificate that would have a retrospective effect in order to cover the period of time she spent representing a man in the Federal Circuit and Family Court.
According to the South Australian Supreme Court, the barrister was advised in February 2025 that she had been practising without a certificate and could not continue to do so. At that stage, her client’s trial had been adjourned until the following month.
The Law Society has sought a declaration that it is required to issue a practising certificate to the barrister and an order to follow.
Standing in the way of the barrister’s application is an intervention by the opposing party in her client’s matter, known only as M, who alleged she “stands to be substantially affected if a certificate is issued to the respondent on a retrospective basis”.
The barrister opposed the joinder application because M’s only interest is in obtaining “improbable forensic advantage” in the Federal Circuit and Family Court proceedings. Even if her practising certificate would detrimentally impact M’s prospects of success, the barrister said this was not a sufficient reason to accept intervention.
The court also heard the barrister was concerned that if M is permitted to be heard in the proceedings, by parity of reasoning, “other litigants who participated in matters in which the respondent appeared as counsel might also wish to be heard”.
Justices Christopher Bleby, Laura Stein, and Ben Doyle allowed M to join as an interested party, but on the condition that she not have a direct interest in the question of whether the barrister should be issued a practising certificate with retrospective effect.
“Her interest is not one which in its own right strongly militates in favour of allowing her to be heard as an interested party, but neither is it so hypothetical or insubstantial that it warrants refusing her application to be joined without further consideration of the extent to which M’s participation is apt to assist the court,” the bench said.
The court determined it was at least possible that M’s evidence may be relevant, particularly the extent to which granting the retrospective certificate may adversely affect the procedural or substantial rights of any party to litigation in which the barrister was involved.
“M should not be shut out of contending that her participation should be enlarged, but the court will consider any such request at the hearing,” Justices Bleby, Stein and Doyle added.
The case: Law Society of South Australia v Betro [2025] SASCFC 2 (3 June 2025).
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at: