On 1 July 2022, Western Australia adopted the Uniform Law, bringing it into line with New South Wales and Victoria. This occurred through the Legal Profession Uniform Law (WA) (the LPUL Act) and the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2022 (WA).
The adoption of the Uniform Law has largely been uneventful, with anecdotal evidence suggesting it has been ‘business as usual’ for most law practices. I question whether this belies hidden dangers.
One area that should be of particular concern to all practitioners is that of the all-important disclosure of estimated costs.
Costs estimate requirements
Readers may recall that the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA) (the LPA) required disclosure of an estimate of the total legal costs, if reasonably practicable, or otherwise a range of estimates of those costs, with an explanation of the major variables affecting the same: s. 260(1) of the LPA.
Under the Uniform Law, practitioners are simply required to provide ‘an estimate of the total legal costs’: s. 174(1) of the LPUL Act.
In March 2016, the Legal Services Council (the LSC) issued a guideline determining that s. 174(1) requires a single figure estimate, separately identifying costs, disbursements, and GST.
On 8 July 2025, following a New South Wales District Court ruling, the LSC revoked that guideline (though this revocation does not appear on the LSC website). That is, the LSC no longer expresses the view that s. 174(1) must be a single figure.
The position in WA
I have been advised by the LSC that it wrote to Uniform Law regulators in July 2025, confirming the guideline had been revoked. Notwithstanding this, there has been no guidance from the Legal Practice Board of WA on this change and what it means for practitioners in WA.
Indeed, until June 2026, the Board’s Uniform Law FAQ provided that: ‘Estimates of costs under the Uniform Law cannot be within a range of likely costs, but must be provided as a single figure, excluding GST and disbursements.’
The FAQ now reads: ‘Estimates of costs under the Uniform Law can be a single figure or a contained range, excluding GST and disbursements.’
The question for WA practitioners is, what are the parameters (if any) for providing a range of estimates?
For the avoidance of doubt, this is not a trifling matter. A breach of the costs disclosure obligation:
- Renders the costs agreement void: s. 178(1)(a) of the LPUL Act.
- Requires the practice to get its costs assessed before seeking to recover them: s.178(1)(b) of the LPUL Act.
- May constitute unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct: s. 178(1)(d) of the LPUL Act.
- Is a factor that may be taken into account on the assessment of the costs: s. 200(2)(a) of the LPUL Act.
To throw in some unnecessary Latin – ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law is no excuse). However, it has been 11 months since the LSC revoked its guideline, and I am unaware of any update from the Board nor apparent efforts to inform the WA profession of the Board’s position on this important disclosure obligation.
I am not aware of any communication to the profession as to this important change. It is entirely unclear what a ‘contained range’ is said to be. This, together with the Board’s decision to quietly update the FAQ on its website, is a damning indictment.
Summary
I consider that, as the regulator of the WA profession, the Board ought to be proactive in issuing clear guidance to practitioners on their disclosure obligations and what is required to meet those obligations. That necessarily includes timely updates when circumstances change.
In the meantime, concerned readers should contact the Board for its position before giving disclosure by way of a range of estimates.
