find the latest legal job
Senior Associate - Litigation & Dispute Resolution
Category: Litigation and Dispute Resolution | Location: Melbourne CBD & Inner Suburbs Melbourne VIC
· Come work for a firm ranked in Lawyers Weekly Top 25 Attraction Firms
View details
Associate - Workplace Relations & Safety
Category: Industrial Relations and Employment Law | Location: Brisbane CBD & Inner Suburbs Brisbane QLD
· Employer of choice · Strong team culture
View details
Freelance Lawyers
Category: Banking and Finance Law | Location: All Perth WA
· Freelance opportunities through Vario from Pinsent Masons
View details
Freelance Lawyers
Category: Other | Location: All Adelaide SA
· • Qualified lawyer with a strong academic background
View details
Freelance Lawyers
Category: Other | Location: All Melbourne VIC
· • Qualified lawyer with a strong academic background
View details
Bad data blamed for Reform rejection

Bad data blamed for Reform rejection

The Queensland Law Society has suggested its State Government may have rejected National Legal Profession Reform (NLPR) and, in turn, threatened its viability, because of incorrect information.

Queensland’s Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie announced this morning (3 October) that a reason for his decision to withdraw support for NLPR is based on the fact that 85 per cent of Queensland solicitors are sole practitioners who, he said, “have nothing to gain from these reforms other than increased costs”.

But the Queensland Law Society has revealed that Bleijie could have his facts wrong. Deputy president Annette Bradfield claimed membership figures indicate that the number of sole practitioners in Queensland is closer to 11 per cent.

“We’re concerned one of the reasons for the decision may have been based on incorrect numbers,” she said.

ALA president Tony Kerin (pictured) told Lawyers Weekly that while the majority of Queensland's lawyers may not be sole practitioners they are still “small outfits” that have different concerns to national firms based in NSW and Victoria, which have already backed the NLPR scheme.

“It’s a complex matter keeping every state happy ... there are different issues in each state and in smaller states the cost issue is paramount,” he said.

Kerin highlighted higher insurance levies as an example of a small-firm concern that needs to be considered by the drafters of the reform package. “Those involved say they’ve been considering these types of issues, but clearly not enough ... to get all the states to buy in,” he said.

“It’s a grand ideal but there are some practical difficulties that need to be overcome.”

Bleijie defended his decision further by claiming that the costs of establishing a national board to regulate the legal profession are “vague” and will most likely be passed on to the participating states. He added that a national board would also create an “unnecessary level of red tape”.

The decision is a major setback for the Law Council of Australia (LCA) and the country’s big law firms, which have been lobbying for a regulatory overhaul. Law firms in particular have voiced the desire to remove inconsistent state rules that add to their compliance burden.

Catherine Gale, president of the LCA, said she is disappointed by the Attorney-General’s announcement. She claimed regulatory differences between states and territories impact all lawyers, not just the national law firms.

“[Inconsistencies] impact medium and specialist law firms that aspire to grow and establish a national presence, as well as the many smaller law firms that operate in border regions, especially in southern Queensland and northern New South Wales,” she explained.

In response to Bleijie’s claim that his decision was also based on the Newman Government’s belief in competitive federalism, Gale argued that the national scheme promotes competitive federalism by creating a level regulatory playing field.

Despite the setback, Kerin remains hopeful that Bleijie’s decision doesn’t signal the end of regulatory reform. He believes, at the very least, efficiencies can still be achieved on a state-by-state basis.

“The profession has come a long way in recognising the mutual admission of practitioners, but it can go further,” he added.

Queensland is the fourth state to reject the scheme, joining Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania.

Like this story? Read more:

QLS condemns actions of disgraced lawyer as ‘stain on the profession’

NSW proposes big justice reforms to target risk of reoffending

The legal budget breakdown 2017

Bad data blamed for Reform rejection
lawyersweekly logo
Promoted content
Recommended by Spike Native Network
more from lawyers weekly
Jetski
Oct 23 2017
How to fail well
The legal profession is due for an attitude adjustment when it comes to perceived failures, accordin...
Consultation
Oct 23 2017
Lawyers slam rushed consultation for SA repeat offenders bill
The Law Society of South Australia has expressed concern for a proposal to roll out new laws amendin...
IBA
Oct 23 2017
The pursuit of happiness in the law
A panel of legal experts have explored how to define success in the legal profession, and how lawyer...
APPOINTMENTS
Allens managing partner Richard Spurio, image courtesy Allens' website
Jun 21 2017
Promo season at Allens
A group of lawyers at Allens have received promotions across its PNG and Australian offices. ...
May 11 2017
Partner exits for in-house role
A Victorian lawyer has left the partnership of a national firm to start a new gig with state governm...
Esteban Gomez
May 11 2017
National firm recruits ‘major asset’
A national law firm has announced it has appointed a new corporate partner who brings over 15 years'...
opinion
Nicole Rich
May 16 2017
Access to justice for young transgender Australians
Reform is looming for the process that young transgender Australians and their families must current...
Geoff Roberson
May 11 2017
The lighter side of the law: when law and comedy collide
On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be much that is amusing about the law, writes Geoff Rober...
Help
May 10 2017
Advocate’s immunity – without fear or without favour but not both
On 29 March 2017, the High Court handed down its decision in David Kendirjian v Eugene Lepore & ...