The National Legal Profession Reform bill released at the end of last month is continuing to cause angst amongst practitioners, the bench and industry regulatory bodies.
Lawyers have long been nervous about how the words "fair and reasonable" could be applied to their bills. But the state law societies are now agitated about relinquishing disciplinary powers to a national body. This week the Law Society of Western Australia said it was"concerned the draft Bill could expose the WA legal profession and consumers of legal services in this state to significantly higher costs". Although it's not entirely clear how costs are expected to increase.
The bench meanwhile seems more concerned with the potential abrogation of the separation of powers doctrine. The Australian reported on a speech given last week by WA Chief Justice Martin, who noted "a regulatory structure which would empower executive government to control the legal profession is utterly inconsistent with the independence of the courts and should be rejected unequivocally and emphatically".
While news reports in the mainstream press predictably sensationalise the impact on consumers - will this affect a solicitor's right to charge for opening a Christmas card? - there are clearly more fundamental concerns to be addressed.
Tip Off ROF
Lawyers have long been nervous about how the words "fair and reasonable" could be applied to their bills. But the state law societies are now agitated about relinquishing disciplinary powers to a national body. This week the Law Society of Western Australia said it was"concerned the draft Bill could expose the WA legal profession and consumers of legal services in this state to significantly higher costs". Although it's not entirely clear how costs are expected to increase.
 |
A client reacts to another fair and reasonable bill |
The bench meanwhile seems more concerned with the potential abrogation of the separation of powers doctrine. The Australian reported on a speech given last week by WA Chief Justice Martin, who noted "a regulatory structure which would empower executive government to control the legal profession is utterly inconsistent with the independence of the courts and should be rejected unequivocally and emphatically".
While news reports in the mainstream press predictably sensationalise the impact on consumers - will this affect a solicitor's right to charge for opening a Christmas card? - there are clearly more fundamental concerns to be addressed.