A tribunal will not interfere with the NSW Law Society’s decision to impose a restrictive condition on a lawyer’s practising certificate, despite his pleas that it would stop him from working altogether.
A solicitor who claimed a condition on his practising certificate has prevented him from working has been turned away from the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) due to issues with jurisdiction.
In mid-2025, having found the solicitor engaged in unsupervised legal practice without professional indemnity insurance, the council of the NSW Law Society determined the breaches meant it could “vary, suspend, cancel or may refuse to renew a practising certificate”.
However, given the steps taken by the solicitor and his submissions, the council resolved to finalise the matter without any action.
Instead, it imposed conditions on his practising certificate; the second of which provided that he must engage in two years of supervised practice.
In its decision, made in August, the council determined it was not possible to relieve the solicitor of condition two, which had arisen in accordance with the Uniform Law and Uniform Rules.
In submissions to NCAT, the solicitor claimed his age and the “present legal market” made it impossible for him to comply, and he could never get to a position where condition two could be removed.
The solicitor contended the decision was, in effect, a decision to refuse to grant him a practising certificate.
But Judge Rashelle Seiden SC, NCAT deputy president, said the decision was “neither in form nor substance” a decision to refuse to renew his practising certificate, even if his circumstances meant he would be unable to continue to engage in legal practice.
“The applicant’s difficulties in his ability to engage in legal practice are not because of a lack of a practising certificate,” Judge Seidon said.
“Even accepting that he is unable, as a matter of practical reality, because of condition two, to practise, this does not negate the proposition that he has a valid and effective practising certificate.”
Judge Seiden also noted the solicitor challenged the supposed refusal rather than the decision to impose condition two. Viewing it as a decision to impose the condition “does not alter the result”.
As no decision about refusal was made, the tribunal was satisfied there was no jurisdiction to review.
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
