Demands have been made of the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia to explain why it has such huge financial reserves and how its expense reimbursements doubled to almost $1 million in the space of a year.
In its joint submission to an inquiry into the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia, five key legal bodies have questioned how its financial reserves reached over $12.5 million in its latest financial statements, with a total combined and cash equivalents and term deposits of over $22 million.
The Association of Corporate Counsel Australia (WA), Community Legal WA, the Law Society of Western Australia, the Piddington Society, and Women Lawyers of Western Australia said it was not clear “what purpose the board holds this level of reserves” and why it continues to increase.
The coalition said it was also unclear whether there was a reserve target or strategy, or how the board intended the funds to be deployed.
“Regulatory bodies do not have a profit-making purpose or remit. Indeed, in comparable jurisdictions, legal regulators that end the year with a profit are required to return that profit to the profession through a reduction in practising fees, or to explain themselves,” the legal bodies said.
According to financial statements from the 2022–23 and 2023–24 periods, the board’s expense reimbursement jumped from $445,112 to $962,325, but there was no explanation of what it related to, who it was reimbursed to, and whether this was legal practitioners, and why it doubled.
“Given the board’s income is derived from mandatory levies on the legal profession, the profession has a right to understand why the board believes this is a proper use of money,” the coalition said.
According to a public submission written by Law Firms Australia’s executive director Mitch Hillier, practising certificate fees in Western Australia “are by far the highest” in the Australian jurisdictions where the practising certificate fees and law society membership fees are separated.
Non-principal solicitors at private law firms in Western Australia were required to spend $1,250 this year, compared to between $490 and $745 for those in Victoria, NSW, Queensland, and South Australia.
The coalition said these fees are “particularly detrimental” to lawyers within community legal services (CLS), which rely predominantly on government funding.
Considering there are 379 CLC lawyers, the coalition said they bring in an estimated $473,750 for the board each year, not accounting for additional hiring or staff turnover. This equates to 3.63 per cent of the total state government funding provided to CLCs in the 2025–26 financial year.
In other jurisdictions, practising certificates are often provided at a discount for CLC lawyers in recognition of the fees taken away from the community.
“Given the board’s growing reserves, some of these funds could be returned to community legal services through fee reductions for the benefit of clients seeking legal assistance,” the coalition said in its joint submission.
In its own submission to the inquiry, the board’s chair, John Syminton, said it was “entirely self-funded” through fees paid by the legal profession and has not received any state government funding since July 2016.
“It is wholly responsible for meeting all of its accommodation and associated costs, as well as its usual operational expenses. This financial independence ensures that the board can maintain a high level of regulatory oversight, while managing its resources effectively,” he said.
Questions should be asked of board’s culture, staffing
In addition to its spending, the coalition encouraged the standing committee to question the Legal Practice Board on anecdotal reports from independent sources that allegedly suggested there were “significant cultural issues”, low morale, and high turnover.
While there is no documentary evidence and the coalition did not seek it, it said the feedback came from “current employees and former staff”.
“We would encourage the standing committee to seek evidence from the board as to levels of staff turnover over time, and the results of exit surveys and staff satisfaction surveys that the board presumably carries out, to identify what is driving these cultural issues,” the coalition said.
The board pointed to staffing and resourcing constraints to justify delays, with its 2023–24 annual report suggesting “the employment market continues to present challenges in recruiting a full complement of skilled staff across the board, which has impacted workloads and timelines”.
The coalition also flagged alleged concerns that the executive director is not subject to annual performance reviews, has not been set KPIs, and is not subject to periodic contract review based on organisational performance.
“For the avoidance of doubt, we do not state or allege that these concerns have merit, we merely report them to the standing committee to assist in the committee’s consideration of the information it might like to request from the board and others,” the coalition said in its submission.
Other pressing issues
Submissions by the coalition, the Australian Lawyers Alliance (ALA), Legal Aid WA, Western Australian Bar, and Law Firms Australia all expressed concerns with the “significant delays” around practising certificates.
One lawyer from the profession told the coalition they were unable to receive a practising certificate “for months” and it “made me look unprofessional” in circumstances where they needed it to provide to clients who were not familiar with the Legal Practice Board’s “ineptitude”.
Another lawyer said they were told the process could not be expedited so they could start a new job and to expect to wait “months”.
There are also delays with removing conditions from practising certificates, with a third lawyer explaining he was made to wait 11 months for the removal of a condition that prevented them from working as a principal solicitor despite completing the mandatory practice management course.
In other states and territories, the coalition reported the relevant bodies have typically processed standard applications within 10 working days.
The coalition said that in addition to frustrations experienced by members of the legal profession, there is an impact “on the wider justice system to the ultimate detriment of the most vulnerable members of our community”.
Syminton said the board recognised “operational shortcomings” and was mindful of the “direct and very real impact” on legal practitioners. He added that the board moved from paper certificates to digital in July 2024, but there have been some “difficulties with reconfiguring” its systems.
He added that the board has also “processed and issued more practising certificates this year” compared to last year, despite the May cyber incident.
There have also been communication delays with the board, with some lawyers reporting waiting weeks and months to have calls and emails returned.
One lawyer said the board was a “ghost organisation” where calls go unanswered. They reported it took about six months for it to update their place of employment and four months to issue personal data.
Another issue identified by key legal bodies is the “manner and tone” in which practitioners receive communications, but particularly those who may be the subject of an investigation or potential disciplinary action.
The coalition alleged the board has an “overly aggressive, prosecutorial and punitive approach”, lacks procedural fairness, has an apparent disregard for the impact of investigations and written medical evidence, and is often “unprofessional, discourteous or overly aggressive” in its communication.
Law Society of Western Australia CEO Kate Wellington said the coalition is committed to working with everyone in the sector to ensure regulation is effective, transparent and trusted.
“This inquiry was sparked by concerning information shared with us by the legal community. We took those concerns seriously, and we welcome the standing committee’s further examination of these issues,” she said.
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
