The Legal Practice Board of Western Australia’s governance and processes will come under rare parliamentary scrutiny, following a Law Society survey that revealed widespread complaints about the board’s operation and effectiveness.
Western Australia’s legal regulator, responsible for admitting lawyers to practice and handling complaints against practitioners, is set to face a rare parliamentary inquiry amid growing concerns from the legal profession over its governance and operations.
Last week, the State Parliament’s public administration committee announced it would launch an inquiry into the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia (LPBWA), in what is believed to be the first-ever parliamentary investigation of a legal regulator in the country.
In papers tabled in Parliament, the committee’s chair, Kate Doust, said the inquiry would examine “the operation and effectiveness of the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia in its role of regulating the Western Australian legal profession”.
The move follows years of concern within the legal community, with the LPBWA itself facing longstanding complaints about its governance and transparency.
According to ABC News, the Law Society of Western Australia submitted a report earlier this year to the Legal Practice Board, outlining a range of concerns raised by practitioners.
The report highlighted issues including “delays, service challenges, and problematic regulatory processes”, based on feedback collected through a profession-wide survey.
“Concerns about the board’s governance and processes have been building for some time,” Law Society CEO Kate Wellington told ABC News.
“We appreciate the nature of the board’s regulatory role. The board’s purpose is public protection.
“The legal profession, too, serves a public purpose, and it is important that its ability to fulfil that purpose is not hindered by barriers to effective practice.”
As reported by ABC News, the board’s own 2023–24 annual report revealed it fell short of many of its self-set, time-based key performance targets.
For example, the legal watchdog resolved only 42 per cent of consumer matters within 90 days, well below its 80 per cent target.
In the case of the most complex investigations, just 40 per cent were concluded within a year, again below the board’s 80 per cent benchmark.
The LPBWA acknowledged the review, with the board’s executive director stating that it “recognises that concerns have been raised in relation to communication, timeliness of regulatory processes and the handling of complaints and disciplinary matters”, and it welcomed the chance to engage with the inquiry.
Nevertheless, many within the profession argue that the regulator has long displayed an uneven approach to oversight.
Several lawyers told The Australian that the board had been disproportionately focused on smaller firms and sole practitioners, while showing reluctance to pursue disciplinary matters against large commercial practices.
“They back off on the big firms, they always have,” one veteran Perth lawyer told the media publication.
He also suggested the board’s membership is heavily weighted towards civil and commercial law, leaving other practitioners feeling marginalised.
“The majority of them are not really familiar with criminal law, and there’s some sentiment among civil lawyers that criminal lawyers and family lawyers do the grubby work,” he said.
