Industry reaction to the Attorney-General’s draft bill to reform the national legal profession is somewhat reminiscent of the 1999 referendum to create an Australian republic: there is broad support for change, but it is the detail which is proving to be the sticking point.

And, in the best tradition of Australian politics, there is a touch of parochialism and class warfare at play. Hylton Quail, president of the WA Law Society, has been quoted as saying that while the society supported the idea of a national profession, “Western Australian lawyers [would] not support a scheme where they can be disciplined in Canberra.” 

A recent speech by Queensland Chief Justice Paul de Jersey also suggested that large commercial firms had some explaining to do. His Honour expressed concern that the reforms created the potential for interference by executive government in the legal profession through control of appointees to the new National Legal Services Board. His Honour commented that the impetus for national reform seemed to be driven by national law firms, which accounted for only about 12% of Queensland solicitors and that it would be “unfortunate if the influence of those national and multi-national-based firms brings about a refashioning of the profession to the point where it loses its independence.”

As de Jersey himself conceded, this was not the result the large law firms themselves had envisaged. The independence of the profession was one of many concerns expressed by Mallesons CEP and Large Law Firms Group chairman Robert Milliner. Milliner also said that it was unclear whether the reforms would guarantee a consistent national regulatory framework.  “The bill at the moment delegates significant powers back to the states but it doesn’t mandate who will [exercise] them or how this will be done,” he told ALB.

Go to page: 1 2