By Michael Douglas, Brief Editor-at-Large
On 14 August 2025, the Public Administration Committee of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of WA commenced an inquiry into the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia (LPB).
If you’re reading this, you likely already know that. What follows is my opinion, and my opinion alone.
When this inquiry was announced, the responses in the profession that I observed were in three flavours:
- Wowee
- Lol
- About time
My personal response was a combination of the three. The thought that this body could be subjected to any level of meaningful scrutiny came as a shock. The LPB is a secondary seat of power within the WA legal profession. If the WASC is King’s Landing, with all those silks at its table, the LPB is Casterly Rock. (I think? I dunno, I only watched the show.)
It came as a shock, but a welcome shock. Across countless oat flat whites and pints quaffed by Perth practitioners, many a tale of the LPB has been told.
The tales are these:
- Practising certificates coming months late.
- Anxious practitioner emails responded to weeks after sending, if at all.
- Heavy-handed investigations that presume misconduct unless proved otherwise.
The first two tales are annoying. They are worthy of a whinge, given that practitioners’ failure to deal with their responsibilities in a timely fashion is exactly the kind of thing the LPB is policing. As Bart Simpson would say, “the ironing is delicious”.
For some, these delays are more than just annoying. Delays in the LPB taking action can have a serious impact on practitioners, financially and mentally.
The third tale is different.
Whether the LPB takes such a “mean” approach is an issue that may be fairly contested. The data individual practitioners have available is questionable: practitioners who are treated well would not, presumably, have cause to share their experiences.
For my part, there is anecdotal evidence for this third tale. Mates have lived it. And it has been demonstrated in recent reasons of the State Administrative Tribunal.
I characterise this third tale in terms of an umbrella of procedural unfairness that I consider to be “general shittiness”. When half litty, I am wont to say, “They’re like the Star Chamber, but more capricious”. (I like dramatic aphorisms.)
Another tale I’ve heard tell is that big firms (read: the best-connected top few) can get away with stuff that smaller operators would not. I don’t know about that one – which is not to say it is not true. Makes sense, given that silks may disproportionately comprise their alumni. For my part, I reckon:
We need more data
Which brings me to a call to action: if you have a view on the LPB, now is the time to share it. Or contribute to the Law Society’s data gathering mission: fill out this form by Monday 8 September!
Why it matters
Say this inquiry decides “the LPB could do better”. So what? Well, I can only see positives. Either the LPB has reason to do better, or we get some new thing.
My sympathies are with “some new thing”. In NSW, the Council of the Law Society of NSW is a designated regulatory authority for the Uniform Law. It has a co-regulatory role with the NSW Legal Services Commissioner: the Law Society investigates complaints against solicitors referred by the Commissioner and deals with complaints about people engaging in legal practice when not qualified or associates of law practices. No doubt their model has its own issues, but at least there is a clear means for accountability: voting.
The LPB has elected positions too, but their role in the organisation appears quite different to that under the NSW model.
On the other hand, replacing the governance model is no panacea for the sorts of issues described above. It’s not like silks are responsible for responding to sollies’ emails. It is the underlying organisation which provides the staff that takes weeks or months to respond to your emails.
So why don’t they just hire more people? Great question.
The LPB’s 2024 Annual Report explained that the organisation is sitting on $8,581,583 cash and $13,434,366 in term deposits. That year, annual revenue exceeded annual expenditure by ~$1.5 million.
They can afford to get a few more hands on deck in that IT department, I reckon.
When the LPB was hacked this year, I wrote:
“The regulated should not dictate their preferred mode of regulation to the regulator. But there is a legitimate conversation to be had within the profession about not just this incident but the achievement of the statutory objects, which underpin the LPB’s powers, that we all serve in the course of observance of our paramount duties to the proper administration of justice. And we should have that discussion constructively without fear of reprisal.
As for those objects, see Legal Profession Uniform Law (WA) s 3:
‘The objectives of this Law are to promote the administration of justice and an efficient and effective Australian legal profession, by …
(b) ensuring lawyers are competent …
(c) enhancing the protection … of the public generally …
(e) promoting regulation of the legal profession that is efficient, effective, targeted and proportionate …’”
I hope that after this review, whatever comes next, the regulation of legal practitioners in WA will better achieve these objects.
The Public Administration Committee is accepting public and organisational submissions until midnight on Friday, 12 September 2025. Practitioners can lodge submissions directly to the inquiry and there is an option to request that your submission be kept confidential.
