The Large Law Firm Group (LLFG) has called on Australia’s federal government to provide flexibility in its national reform of the legal profession, warning against a ‘one size fits all’ approach to new regulatory structures and consumer protection.

The LLFG, a coalition representing nine large firms, has endorsed the approach of the government’s taskforce and said it presented the legal profession with a great opportunity. Allens Arthur Robinson, Blake Dawson, Clayton Utz, Corrs Chambers Westgarth, Deacons, DLA Phillips Fox, Freehills, Mallesons Stephen Jaques and Minter Ellison are the member firms.

“[LLFG] believes the Federal Government has given the legal profession a great opportunity to modernise the legislative base and the regulatory systems underpinning the legal services market,” said the coalition’s chair and executive chief partner of Mallesons, Robert Milliner. “The LLFG is accordingly open-minded about proposals for a national legal services board and an Ombudsman, and fully supports the need for revision of existing arrangements to provide necessary consumer protections and to ensure that consumers have the same rights and remedies.”

However, Milliner said it is important that arrangements are proportionate and focused and meet the criteria specified by the taskforce for simplicity, efficiency and effectiveness. He warned of dangers in attempting to apply the same consumer protection provisions to all classes of consumers, given the difference in bargaining power and sophistication of large corporations and financial institutions compared with small businesses and individuals.

“The corporate client base of a large law firm clearly involves a different type of legal consumer than an individual who engages a small firm on a matter,” Milliner said. “Corporate clients have the knowledge – and often the preference – to negotiate commercial arrangements on an individual basis with their legal services provider. This should be reflected in the regulatory approach of the national model.”

The LLFG called on the government to either adopt a definition of consumer (which distinguishes between major consumers and individuals or small businesses) or an ‘opt-out’ provision that can be selected, so that firms and their clients do not face a compliance regime that is irrelevant for their corporate client base. “The government needs to be wary of replacing one type of red tape with another,” Milliner said.

Related articles

Ombudsman would have unprecedented power over law firms

Do lawyers need LLM or MBA?