LSC defends national uniform law

Contrary to recent criticisms, the national Uniform Law provides a good model of national regulation and fosters a national legal profession, Legal Services Council CEO Dale Boucher writes.

Dale Boucher • 10 May 2016 • SME Law

Lawyers Weekly reported last week that Bruce Doyle, a former Queensland Law Society President, said the Legal Profession Uniform Law is a flawed model of regulation and that other jurisdictions, apart from NSW and Victoria, should resist it as a model of regulation for the Australian legal profession.

You’re out of free articles for this month

Username or Email

Password Forgot password?

Keep me signed in on this device.

First Name

Last Name

Mobile

Organisation Type

By becoming a member, I agree to receive information and promotional messages from Lawyers Weekly. I can opt out of these communications at any time. For more information, please visit our Privacy Statement.

Need help signing up? Visit the Help Centre.

I refute these claims, which miss the point. The Australian legal profession has long aspired for a national system of regulation, something that has had the strong support of the Law Council of Australia and the Australian Bar Association. The Uniform Law provides a good model for this and consumers and the profession as a whole are the big winners.

The Uniform Law has been adopted as a single piece of legislation to regulate lawyers in NSW and Victoria and has been in operation since 1 July 2015. It covers over 70 per cent of the Australian legal profession.

The Uniform Law eases the regulatory burden on legal practitioners, especially on those who engage in multi-jurisdictional practices. The entire legal profession in NSW and Victoria is realising the benefits of working from the same legislation in the different jurisdictions. It should be remembered that this includes small practices and large, corporate and government lawyers, as well as regulators and governments.

It is essential in all of this that we do not forget our clients. Under the Uniform Law, firms must provide estimates of total legal costs and keep these up to date from time to time. This is not very different to the obligations that lawyers have long had to provide cost estimates to their clients, but now there is more emphasis on keeping clients in the picture, all the time. The Legal Services Council has prescribed a simplified cost disclosure form and a new Rule 72A to help with this.

VIEW ALL

Another important difference with the Uniform Law scheme is that it gives a permanent place at the regulatory table for the legal profession. The Law Council of Australia and the Australian Bar Association can propose rules governing solicitors and barristers, which the LSC makes.

With benefits comes responsibility. The Uniform Law enables the profession not only to propose rules for its regulation but also gives it the responsibility of thinking more widely about the community.

Contrary to statements that the Uniform Law still requires separate trust accounts to be kept in each jurisdiction, there is a provision to exempt law practices from this requirement with the approval of the relevant local regulatory authority. This will benefit smaller law practices on the borders, as well as national firms. Furthermore, we are investigating ways to streamline provisions like this.

Another way in which the Uniform Law assists lawyers and their clients alike is that dispute resolution provisions have been reformed. This is starting to show significant cost benefits in both states. For example, in Victoria, far fewer matters are going to VCAT. More matters are being resolved at the local regulator level, at less cost to all concerned.

The costs of the council and the commissioner for Uniform Legal Services Regulation are not large. The current budget for the Legal Services Council and commissioner is $1.35 million, shared between participating jurisdictions. There are several options to source these funds, whether they are from admission fees, practising certificates, interest on trust accounts or otherwise.

A national regulatory scheme covering all legal practitioners in Australia would cost less than $20 per legal practitioner, per year. Members of the legal profession can participate in improving its standing for about $0.50 cents a week, per lawyer. Anything that is worthwhile has some cost and the costs of the Uniform Law are not great by any measure.

Each new state joining the scheme will be another step towards the continuing growth of a national legal profession and an integrated national legal system. This is important in a country as small in population terms as Australia.

A united legal profession under the Uniform Law can only enhance Australia’s international and local reputation for the provision of legal services.

Dale Boucher is the CEO of the Legal Services Council and Commissioner for Uniform Legal Services Regulation.

Mark Warton Wednesday, 11 May 2016

It is no more correct to say that the "legal profession" has long aspired for a national system of regulation than it is to say that the legal profession has long aspired to wear a pin stripe suit and own a Brett Whiteley painting.The Law Council of Australia and the Australian Bar Association can propose rules under the uniform law. Whether they are made or not though, is a decision for the Legal Services Council and the Standing Committee (the NSW and Victorian Attornies-General). Both the LCA and the ABA are composed of members who are appointed from jurisdictions which did not join the scheme. So, people from States like Tasmania and South Australia who did not join the uniform law scheme, develop rules for NSW and Victorian lawyers.Prior to the uniform law, the Council of the NSW Law Society made the rules for NSW solicitors and the NSW Bar Association made them for barristers in NSW. So the profession in NSW already had a permanent place at the regulatory table. Or at least it did until the uniform law was proclaimed.The members of those bodies were, and still are, elected by NSW legal practitioners.

0
TNG Wednesday, 11 May 2016

How can 6 out of 8 jurisdictions have got this so wrong and 2 got it right? Perhaps because 6 didn't get it wrong. Indeed several who were initially in changed their minds when they saw the detail. Imagine if Qld and SA, for example, were the 2 who had signed up. Would it then still be a 'national' scheme or called 'uniform'? Seems ridiculous to suggest so. 

0
Graeme Arnold Wednesday, 11 May 2016

The interests of consumers are always wheeled out as the final justification. Query how consumers interests are best served if small or sole practitioners in outer suburbs or rural areas see such over regulation as the final straw and cease practising.

0
Michael Gibney Wednesday, 11 May 2016

Self-interest never makes for balanced comment, Uniform Law is a dog's breakfast. How is it that the Legal Profession have tied themselves up in a knot of rules and regulation when the Accounting Profession have achieved better public acceptance with almost no rules or regulation? I will tell you - too many Lawyers led to Lawyers looking to carve out niche practices and Legal Profession regulation is now one of those well established niche practice areas.

0
Guest Wednesday, 11 May 2016

Response: "Featured Comments" is a pretty clear indication in the newsletter and it in the Opinions section on the website. Maybe "supporters" are just getting on with it? What weight do "consumers" concerns deserve?

0
Anthony Robinson Tuesday, 10 May 2016

I could not agree more - red tape and vested interests. 

0
Paul Duggan Tuesday, 10 May 2016

Mr Boucher's support for the new Uniform Law has a lonely, echoing and unconvincing ring to it.Does anyone recall reading or hearing any enthusiasm for the Uniform Law from any disinterested party? Its only proponents all seem to be either politically invested in it (eg the NSW AG) or occupationally invested in it (eg Victoria's Legal Services Commissioner).Lawyers Weekly must surely race out a special express edition the day it finds a real-world client or private practitioner willing to praise any aspect of this bizarrely large and unwieldy package of red tape.

0
Graeme Arnold Tuesday, 10 May 2016

Query why this is not properly identified as an opinion piece. Again we see concerned practitioners validly debating in public the utility of the Uniform Law, only to be dismissed as ill-informed or disingenuous. And of course it can only be the supporters of the Uniform Law who are the enlightened ones. There are many more threshold issues worth debating, such as: 1. The Uniform Law is not uniform. The two jurisdictions participating each have 200 section Acts separate to the Uniform Law changing it here and there. How is that going to improve as more states jump on board? 2. The nomenclature between the NSW & Victoria jurisdiction specific Acts are inconsistent. Citation confusion is growing steadily. Section 177? Of which Act?? 3. The standard of legislative drafting is incredibly poor, considering the time and effort that supposedly went into the exercise.

0